Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal unconditional love

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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an advert Benjaminstewart05 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advert of what? you don´t like how I define it? just becouse we raelians try to make people think about what the love truly is I left the website adress. but if that's a big problem...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeoTerrel (talk • contribs) .

• This article doesn't assert notability, nor does it assert a definite association of Raelism. If it should be put anywhere (merged) it should be with the raelism article. Benjaminstewart05 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An opinion piece; blog material. Patently unencyclopedic.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.already removed the website adress, anythign else.

An opinion piece - like the other types are not opinion pieces? Look there quite many people around from different cultures and ways of life who would write the same.

Patently unencyclopedic - just becouse it is a new understanding of the love which you seem not to have heared does not mean it does not belong here. If that is not to record of what people think then what is your encyclopedia - past?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoTerrel (talk • contribs)

• Delete. BoojiBoy 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. only first guy had a good reason to say delet as it looked like an advert. and I am sorry for that mistake, i did not think about that.

There are people who define love like I wrote there, and just deleting it and closing your eyes to not see it will not do any good. It is probably a minority view, but it still exists. And that I wanted to record.

Also remember the greeks they had three levels for the love: Philos, Eros, Agape. First being a love between friends. Second between a man and woman. Agape - was a love towards all that exists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoTerrel (talk • contribs)

• Delete: An essay not an article. Also an advertisement without a website adress does not make this article any less of an article. Deathawk 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An essay. Ok that I see. well it's my first day and first article here. have to read those guides. and the website adress I already removed. I have a hard time how to make it into an article as I see it fine...— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoTerrel (talk • contribs)

• Delete, non-encyclopedic. MaxSem 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I see the point as well, it does not fit really... my bad. I´ll work on that article. meanwhile I say also "delete"— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoTerrel (talk • contribs)

• Delete the essay. Hopefully the author(s) have a copy of the interesting essay. --Starionwolf 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

) I the author am here. now I edited it to only one line. And I am thinking how if I need to write anything more. But Probably some quotes from history and links to somewhere would do good. But is it still to be deleted, that means I have to write a full polished article before putting it up there. if that is so then ok. no problems I saw my mistake.

I do have the copy of the essay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoTerrel (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Very nice, but OR essay. Fan1967 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoTerrel 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC) well does it look better now?[reply]

• Comment. What's left is a dictionary definition of agape. Fan1967 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) yeah, but I can´t see those words in the article about agape.[reply]

Neo 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC) changed the wording but it's still the same. What should I do to make it better? I think it should be on the list of types of love, but not without an article about it? Any suggestions?[reply]

• Universal Unconditional Delete - OR Zero sharp 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article on Love, where this author has already put it in any case. No opinion on whether it belongs there -- but it certainly doesn't need its own article. NawlinWiki 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Universal Unconditional Delete per Zero sharp. Jammo (SM247) 05:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per NawlinWiki. - Motor (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Universal Unconditional Delete -- at least until TeoTerrel learns to sign his/her/its posts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or cleanup HawkerTyphoon 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.