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 Delete as WP:OR. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildness[edit]

Wildness

This article as presented is almost entierly speculative, containing many subjective assertions about a variety of things. The final part of the article is particulary unencyclopedic:

"Due to its pursuit of unshielded possibilities, wildness encourages parsimony during the development and coordination of one’s understandings, instincts and emotions. It is a cutting process (like Occam's Razor) that exposes bare bones and truths, with no room for pretence and favourites. This feature can make wildness seem tough, but it also provides a stable foundation upon which nature can build. A sense of accomplishment or eureka can be the reward for using wildness, when it finds a simpler way through a complicated maze that was inhibiting life."

Essentially this is not an encyclopedic definition of "Wildness", it is merely a particular person's "Philosophy of Wildness". Orgone 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious OR. Not a bad impressionistic essay, in my opinion, but not appropriate for WP.DGG 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as interesting as it is, it's probably OR since it reads like a personal philosophy on the subject, complete with famous author quote. Darth griz⁹⁸ 01:12, 2 April 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.