Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possibilianism (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibilianism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This philosophy seems to only be espoused by David Eagleman. There is not a single reference that is independent of him, leading me to believe that this is a non-notable philosophy. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - (1) The statement by Primefac is verifiably incorrect: the article itself links to statements by notables such as Kevin Kelly and Philip Pullman describing why they call themselves possibilians. (2) The New Yorker article entitled The Possibilian cites a source from Facebook stating that thousands of Facebook users have changed their religion to "possibilian". (3) There are over 8,000 hits on google for possibilianism.  These points demonstrate notability beyond dispute, I should think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.135.96.31 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - There are sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though there are fleeting references to the word (many of which seem to be tongue in cheek) there's no real reliable coverage of any "philosophical system". This is either original research, or self-promotion. Not yet notable. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - There are plenty of reliable sources to pass notability guidelines, including sources such as The New Yorker, MSNBC, LA Times, and NPR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.83.161 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 20 April 2015 (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.