Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Cooper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE Adam Coopper and KEEP (NO CONSENSUS) Urban Shamanism. Thryduulf 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable and his school of thought. But apparently not self-promotion - see Talk:Adam Cooper and Talk:Urban Shamanism. -- RHaworth 03:19:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
- delete as nonnotable---CH (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete 'Adam Cooper Dlyons493 10:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Urban Shamanism as it stands. With a major rewrite there might be an article in there somewhere. Dlyons493 10:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Better to have two vfd's?
- And fill AfD with more bureaucracy votes? I think people see a connection. Peter Isotalo 15:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't combine two votes for deletion, it causes confusion. "Adam Cooper" isn't sufficiently notable. "Urban Shamanism," however, isn't exclusively his school of thought and should be considered in a seperate vote. (For what it is worth, I vote Delete Cooper, Keep urban shamanism.) Crypticfirefly 00:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's exactly what I was trying to say - thanks. Dlyons493 08:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Better to have two vfd's?
- Delete. As per nominator. / Peter Isotalo 15:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although it's slightly better than the technopaganism article. -- Kjkolb 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, typical New Age Bullshit. I wonder if they even know what Shamanism means.--Maprovonsha172 15:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is irrelevant whether the proponents of this movement know what "shamanism" means. It is only relevant whether the movement is notable. Crypticfirefly 05:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you insist on deleting Urban Shamanism without separate consideration, please consider merging some or all of the content into Psychedelia. (The article itself admits that this "movement" is also known by that name.) Crypticfirefly 06:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Urban shamanism — lots of Google hits. Whether it is "New Age bullshit" is irrelevant. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 23 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.