Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rational mysticism

In re closing

 * 3 to delete
 * one of which is User:Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x): added the prod tag, posted more than half the text on this Afd, self-identified on user page as deletionist.


 * 5 to keep
 * one of which is User:RDates, who created the stub; I directed him to DRV when he objected after I deleted the expired prod; I posted to keep two days ago, switching today to neutral.

In this Afd's fifth day, it's looking like no consensus or keep. — Athaenara ✉  02:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * More people need to weigh in on this, especially people who are interested and have some knowledge of the subject, hopefully experts. You are an admin; is there any way to call attention to articles that haven't reached consensus in effort to accumulate more opinions?  I don't know of any myself or I would have already done so.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The daily Afd logs—see "view log" link in the second line of this Afd—are meant to help with that. — Athaenara  ✉  05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, we have 2 comments to Keep based on "significant media coverage," one "It is a genuine philosophical theory," one "Rational mysticism is … an important concept" and one that it is a "genuine avenue of investigation." All of these boil down to "it exists".


 * [interjection] I beg your pardon but my comment in favour of keeping this article boils down to more than "it exists". It boils down, if you wish to use that phrase, to: it exists, is useful and notable. Xxanthippe 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

On the other side, we have WP:NOR pointing out the majority of references are about the book itself, one "it's just a book title" (WP:WHOCARES), and my WP:SYN comment. -- Kesh 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hypergeometric removed four citations (see Talk:Rational mysticism); there may have been some confusion about what "attributed to" means. — Athaenara  ✉  21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This has turned into a meaningless exercise in semantics; adding weasel words and misleading cites won't change anything about this article. I challenge anyone that supports the existence of this article to explain to me, as a wikipedian, what exactly rational mysticism IS.  A movement?  A phrase?  A philosophy?--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hyper, you're in favour of deletion. That is obvious.  Why not just leave all these issues alone for a few days?  Let Wikipedia do what it does.  You have already dominated the AFD discussion and also, it seems to me, tried to impede neutral editors' efforts to develop the article.  I think it would be best if you stopped doing that.   — Athaenara  ✉  04:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)