Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo Messiah

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 speedy delete. El_C 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo Messiah

Neo Messiah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research. Appears to be a religious commentary on the topic of messiahs. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as...oh, just read the article. Someguy1221 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No Sources, completely biased POV, not notable among other things. James Luftan ^contribs 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed the speedy deletion tag and listed it here. If you can tell me what criterion it matches, I'll speedily delete it myself; unfortunately, I don't see that it does. Being OR, unsourced, or POV are not criteria for speedy deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I had it tagged Speedy Delete/Context because at the time it was tagged, it was one sentence, incoherrent and contained borked html. Was cleaned up to a few incoherrent sentences and deborked when you removed the tag. Pharmboy 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. And unfortunately, nonsense has to be "incoherent" to be speediable. Someguy1221 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete See talk for it. I had it tagged as speedy, someone felt it was better here. Pharmboy 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Smite It. No sources, perhaps propaganda, fails most wikipedia requirements, I think.Ravenmasterq 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy - starts off sounding to be possibly religious, but then just spirals. Speedy destruction I think. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire and brimstone Unfortunately, violations of WP:SOAP are not a speediable offense. However, you'd have to have a pretty active imagination to think this could be an encyclopedia article. Blueboy96 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Sounds like an Uncyclopedia topic, they've got a large collection of articles on different made-up Jesus'. Homestarmy 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Bury it under a thick layer of snow. --Targeman 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Lynch it per above. Sahmeditor 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete per above. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, because it's a bunch of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:OR and WP:V. --Pixelface 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock." - Smerdis of Tlön 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:22, 29 July 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.