Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine philosophy

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Divine philosophy]]=

{{ns:0|S}}

:{{la|Divine philosophy}} ([{{fullurl:Divine philosophy|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine philosophy}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article seems to be orphaned and has no significant articles linking to it. It was the creation of User:RoddyYoung about 1.5 years ago, and it has remained in poor condition ever since. I don't see a potential for expansion so I'm nominating for deletion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably could be merged with something or other (Bahai?) but would take quite a bit of work.Hgilbert (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could be significantly improved by blanking the page, but it does seem to be a term used in by a notable religious sect. The fact that the article requires a total and merciless rewrite (at the very least, so that it speaks of what some people believe, rather than something which actually exists) doesn't speak towards its suitability for deletion. RJC Talk Contribs 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • comment what religious sect are you referring to? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Bahai. The article says that its subject is found in Kitáb-i-Aqdas, a Bahai text. Nonsense, but verifiable, notable nonsense. RJC Talk Contribs 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually it's not in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and even if it where, it would be secondary sources that determine notability, not primary sources. The term is not really notable in the Baha'i Faith. I think you should do some research before stating it is notable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a notable concept. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not seem to be a very notable expression. Besides that it means different things in different traditions, so the article is OR. BYW the fantasy writer E. R. Eddison also used it. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete While I apreciate what the authors are trying to do, with all due respect: write the book first. This synthesis does not belong on Wikipedia ... yet. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The Kitab-i-Aqdas is written in Arabic, not English. At first glance, a redirect to Theology would be more appropriate than the current content. GRBerry 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject is not notable, and article is a weird combination of WP:OR and unintelligibility. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.