Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One World Religion

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. bainer (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One World Religion[edit]

This amounts to original research and has no verifiable sources of information. It's on the verge of being a conspiracy theory. Cuñado - Talk 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources referenced or cited, appears to be original research. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the article doesn't cite any sources within the next few days. --Starionwolf 06:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Alphachimp ^talk 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per contra, OWR is a well-recognised sub-text within the NWO-watch community, and is also a consistent theme within Millenialism. Recommend keep and expand -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And may Gaia have mercy on your familiar. Hdtopo 08:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with SockpuppetSamuelson that "One World Religion", along with "One World Government" and sometimes "One World Monetary System" is a noteworthy bogeyman for conspiracy cranks. The question is, would this text help make a better article about this noteworthy concept? And here I ain't convinced. Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If kept, the world "without the need for war, terrorism or other types of conflicts" would be so boring. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Original research. There are aspects of it that are useful. There are people who want one world religion. For some it looks like their religion, for others its an amalgam. For yet others its an inevitable, evolving process. Often (as mentioned by others above) it is defined by its opponents. The above notwithstanding, this article is not clear or clean and contains insufficient external citation. --Christian Edward Gruber 11:46, 31 May 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.