Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"First Principles"

"First Principles" was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

A well-intentioned but deeply POV personal (and therefore unencylopedic) philosophical essay, written by a potentially useful contributor. -- The Anome 22:55, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- if these aren't established philosophical points (ie, if it really is just a personal essay), delete. otherwise, it still needs a lot of POV work. clara 23:39, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: A version of the ontological proof here as original research. (I prefer the existential proof, as it's the only one anti-rationalist enough to boil down to "try it or shut up.") Geogre 01:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The current content should be deleted as original research/personal essay. The quotation marks in the article title are not proper according to our naming convention. Instead of deleting, It could redirect to the article we already have on First principles, which briefly describes what the concept means in logic and metaphstics. Or it could redirect to Herbert Spencer, since it is the title of his most famous work. On the whole, I think a simple delete is best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As much as it pains my soul, I have to agree, delete. (BTW, I don't have anything to do with the article) -- FirstPrinciples 06:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. --Improv 15:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever it is, it isn't an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Fire Star 02:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Essay/original research. zoney ♣ talk 11:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. POV, original research. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 23:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Useless content; I am tempted to even describe it as patent nonsense. An encyclopedia is not a place to present a "proof" of existence of God as a fact, instead (as already is the case) it should describe various arguments for (and against) God's existence and their respective counter-arguments. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 00:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Authorship implicitly claimed in the vanity page Dorian Hadley, which was created by a Wikipedia vandal. See vfd for Dorian Hadley. Samaritan 00:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I hope the author has kept a copy, it seems like good writing, but is POV and first person. On the other hand, Philisophical arguments regaurding the existance or nonexistance of a diety (I need to find a shorter NPOV title) is certainly an interesting topic and one of historical significance. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Aha! Arguments for the existence of God, Arguments against the existence of God. The titles aren't quite NPOV, but probably as close as common sense allows. Perhaps the NPOV parts of the content can be merged? --L33tminion | (talk) 20:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.