Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHY ARE WE HERE

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 as - well, something which Wikipedia is not. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE WE HERE[edit]

Obvious OR and essay, content already on several other pages, unsalvageable incoherent rambling; had been prodded so now am including for an AfD discussion Jammo (SM247) 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely OR and useless. This sort of stuff should be able to be speedied. By the way, perhaps it should have just been left as a prod, because I'm sure that this is not controversial. DarthVad e r 00:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bull. --djrobgordon 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OR, ridiculous title, etc. Adambiswanger1 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why was this not left as PROD? nothing contriversial here. --Xorkl000 01:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WE ARE HERE TO DELETE THAT KIND OF CRAP ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete burninate this crap. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's OR, of the rambling blog variety. Interlingua 03:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the essay. --Starionwolf 03:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Delete, as fast as possible per above. --Coredesat 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR essay per WP:NOT, Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. The prod was never actually removed, it's just that User:SM247 doesn't know how WP:PROD is supposed to work. (It's supposed to keep noncontroversial deletions off AfD, and get them removed without it, not expedite getting them on.) I at first thought it was patent nonsense from just looking at the title. Morgan Wick 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. overly dramatic, not informative, and seriously one-sided. Howdoesthiswo 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. per nom. Not encyopedic, overly dramatic and full of nonsense. fnfd 10:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay, original research, better off on a blog. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Random nonsense. - Nick C 11:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, nonsense. --Tim1988 ^talk 12:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense —M e ts501 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morgan Wick, including that this should have run its course in WP:PROD. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense Computerjoe 's talk 17:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per other users. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 18:38, 11 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.