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 snowball delete. Sr13 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological meaning of human life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A very large chunk of WP:OR. Despite having a long edit history, it's also incomprehensible in some places, and sometimes reads like it was auto-translated from another language. A number of sources, but they merely source items that are tangentally referred to. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like an essay of some sort, which falls into the WP:OR department. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- is very much original research. -- MisterHand 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete OR essay. Bucketload of sources do not prevent this from bbeing WP:SYN. No WP:RS to establish WP:N Pete.Hurd 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR. Philippe 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR and a giant messy essay. Ford MF 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the author having put a lot of work into this, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Cardamon 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the expansive nature of the article and the references provided perhaps it would be better to request it be rewritten to a more encyclopedic nature rather than deleted outright Guycalledryan 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, not to mention incomprehensible rubbish in places. Lankiveil 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Darkbane 12:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. AniMate 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know it is frustrating to see an article this long go down the drain, but the article in its current state is full, if not completely, of original research—not acceptable in an encyclopedia. —Anas ^talk? 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. This is either a large chunk of original research, or else it is a theory being presented without the sort of context that is vital in an article like this, such as who originated this hypothesis and who accepts it. Were a simple lead section added to this article that explained these things, the article might be worth keeping. Without one, it seems soapboxy and unverifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would make a nice sientific[sic] essay but is a bad article. --St.daniel ^Talk 17:19, 14 May 2007 (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.