Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enlightened caveman


 * 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. Wizardman 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlightened caveman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparent neologism which only seems to be used in the single book it references. I've declined a speedy on this – it's certainly not "blatant spam" – but I question whether it's a notable enough term to warrant a Wikipedia article. (Wiktionary wouldn't want it in this form so transwikiing is a nonstarter). – iride  scent  22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was considering the same situation when the nominator, Iridescent, very kindly relieved me of the necessity of AfD'ing this.  I agree that it's not blatant spam, but I think it's subtle spam.  I can find no reliable sources other than the author's own works to demonstrate any usage of this term in any context other than the author's own works.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe theory. Inadequate reliable sources. Axl (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Maybe It's not for speedy deletion but it definetely is publicity. --Varano (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO problems. I was half-expecting a mysterious black monolith in the article -- wrong enlightened caveman, I guess. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.