Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagaian Cosmology: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Bucketsofg (talk | contribs) →[[Pagaian Cosmology]]: refactor |
Bucketsofg (talk | contribs) →[[Pagaian Cosmology]]: discounted |
||
Line 25:
:::::::P.S. You can create a userpage by clicking on your username, entering text in the box and hitting save. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I looked for references and everything I found was on the topic was tied directly to the author of the single book on the subject. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Retain''' I object to the deletion of the article on ‘PaGaian Cosmology’ because it meets Wiki’s three cardinal content policies. It has been written from a neutral point of view, representing its views fairly and without bias, it has been researched, reviewed and published by a substantial number of reliable secondary sources and does not contain any unpublished material. The word PaGaian is well defined within the article as a unique synthesis of two well known words ie ‘pagan’ and ‘Gaia’, which in my opinion rules out any need to define it as a ‘neologism’. The book is based on 30 years of research and development involving many participating groups and is an outcome of the author’s doctoral thesis. The book ''PaGaian Cosmology – Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion'' published by iUniverse, Inc in 2005 ''''''together with numerous independent reviews''', is made freely available via a creative commons licence at [http://pagaian.org] an open source website that is increasingly attracting notice with a total of 11404 hits and 4261visits within the past five months. [[User:Malpagaia|Malpagaia]] 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:::<small>'''Note of closing admin''' this "vote" was discounted (first edit of new user).
** '''AfD etiquette:''' Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using [[sock puppets]] (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted. [[Special:Contributions/Malpagaia]] signed [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per original reasoning: no evidence of notability; lacks outside, verifiable sources. --[[User:Fang Aili]] 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If the term is "defined in the article" as a "unique synthesis" then it definitely would be considered a [[WP:NEO|neologism]] for present purposes. However, if the book has been reviewed in multiple, independent, reliable sources (and I would like to see those sources given the obvious [[WP:COI]] problem here), then the ''book'' is [[WP:N|notable]] and should have an article, even if the term should not. I think I will contact Dr. Livingstone on her talk page. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||