Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God in everyday life

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; article is highly unencyclopedic, WP:SOAP and WP:OR. ~ Arjun 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God in everyday life

God in everyday life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a stubby POV essay, not an encyclopedia. "God in everyday life" might be a potential article, but even then would face endless POV issues, as it is, this is Original research, Unverifiable and has point-of-view issues. Wintermut3 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This reads somewhat like a personal essay and somewhat like a soapbox piece. I'm not sure an article could really be developed on this topic, but if it can, this is not the place to start. GassyGuy 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Elmer Clark 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV; maybe then redirect to Immanence (or not). --N Shar 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not one to usually bring up WP:SNOW, but honestly, this article would never survive under any conditions. Inherently fails WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV--Wafulz 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:OR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Also fails to adhere to the requirements of WP:CSB for being a strictly Western, monotheistic, and apparently Protestant American Christian diatribe. --Charlene 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:OR i kan reed 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per WP:SOAP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under about half of WP:NOT -- feb^talk 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Cedlaod 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nice title, nice sentiment, but it violates several policies. ◄Zahakiel► 05:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redundant delete - per everyone else. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Is this religious spam? ZimmerBarnes 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Pile-on Delete fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and is thus eligible, essentially, for WP:SNOW. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Had we a better umbrella article on religious devotion I'd suggest it be redirected there. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Obvious POV essay --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article has no substance and no apparent workable form. While there's a good chance the article creator is new to Wikipedia and would need help on the learning curve of article creation, this particular form has no future. Bbagot 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like the text you'd find on a religious inspirational card. This has no place in an encyclopedia. --Kimon 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Laughable content :) Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2007 (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.