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 Speedy keep Article is well sourced by all means, notability is not in question. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Material[edit]

Seth Material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable and Unencyclopedic. Written like a personal essay in a non-neutral manner. Primary sources are used for claims of notability and does not contain material suitable for an encyclopedia. NoVomit (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I’m sorry if this comes across as sarcastic, but are we talking about the same article? The one I linked to was well written – well sourced and well cited. Likewise, a Google News search shows these references [1]. In addition, Google Scholar returns these results [2]]. I am not sure what standard you are looking at to establish Notability but the one we use here at Wikipedia would definitely include this article. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - the article kicks off with three citations saying how important it is within the new age movement. Looks fairly notable to me. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is better sourced than 95% of the rest. I can only conclude either that the nominated article was a vandalized version, or that the only point to this nomination is hostility towards New Age claims. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Article has plenty of sources to establish notability. What materials are not suitable for an encyclopedia?... The new age movement? --Jmundo (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Hello NoVomit, I understand that you are a new user, and by the way welcome to the project called Wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that when you have a disagreement with regards to an article, those disagreements are better addressed at the talk page of that article. It is not an acceptable practice, actually called bad faith, to bring an article to AFD when one knows that the piece does meet all the eligibility requirements as outlined in notability. With that said, I would hope you would withdraw your nomination caulking this up to a learning experience with no hard feelings. If you would like to continue to exercise the community by continuing this AFD I would like to ask a administrator to close this discussion with a Speedy Keep – as notability has been firmly established. Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 17:56, 12 December 2008 (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.