Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation Application

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 keep. the topic is the official law; well referenced and nontrivial, although indeed sounds like a bad joke. But life is full of such jokes. `'Míkka 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation Application

“Reincarnation Application” is a neologism, not an established, specific technical term. The article is original research about a minor current event, poorly sourced and fails to meet notability criteria. —Babelfisch 08:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly neologism in nature. Moreover, a quick google search shows up only a few hits for this term. The lack of any reliable sources for this term is also a major concern here. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. Clearly, I made an error in judgement here. Based on the overwhelming evidence and further personal research, this article should be kept! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly the law is sourced and has notability, and it's a law so it's not really a current event. Neologism is debatable, given that the news source refers to it as "reincarnation application" specifically. We could alternatively move it to "Chinese reincarnation registration law" or something of that sort, but that would be kinda silly. I don't get what you people are saying with "original research" "poorly sourced" "lack of any reliable sources" or "impossible to verify", did you not see the reference section? As far as notability goes, see this list:
TimesOnline
Spero
The Telegraph India
Reuters Canada
Telegraph UK

This is just a *partial* list, it clearly has more than enough notability and verifiability, the only real debate here is the name --Lu c id 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, and a comment; neologisms are about WORDS that are recently coined. Not new things in general, and not names of things that are clearly understood --Lu c id 09:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, not a neologism, but a term for a new legal document created by China. Futhermore, there are plenty of reliable sources. This also appears to be a significant event in China's policy toward Buddhism and specifically toward the Dalai Lama. IPSOS (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article contains a bit of OR when explaining the term, but that doesn't make the event or term unnotable. References seem to back the article. Kww 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term seems to be clearly notable and the article explains it well enough. --Klimov 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,clearly a notable term, used in many reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --RucasHost 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Status of religious freedom in People's Republic of China. --Metropolitan90 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if for nothing else per WP:SNOW. This has to be the most bizarre piece of legislation I have yet heard of. As such it is interesting, and being interesting is a perfectly good argument for keeping something. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 9 August 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.