Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilocation

: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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

=[[Bilocation]]=

WITHDRAWN

:{{la|Bilocation}} ([{{fullurl:Bilocation|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilocation}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

WP:NEO. Not a recognized term except by paranormal enthusiasts who seem to like to invent scientific-sounding words for every myth and story they want to believe is real. Until this term gets noticed by people who aren't true believers, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - deletion rationale is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel a follower of cults or anything, and am familiar with the term. --89.78.165.36 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC) --Ouro (blah blah) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in, sorry)
  • Keep - I just found an extensive entry on Bilocation in [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm The Catholic Enyclopedia], an entry dating back to 1907. So, no: it's not a made-term by "paranormal enthusiasts", unless you want to lump Catholics of a century ago into that category.-- P L E A T H E R talk 07:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The bilocation of Christian saints is long-since addressed in sources. That the article already mentioned this aspect of the subject at the time of nomination made this a nomination that was not only unresearched, but that was not even based upon reading the article itself. There are multiple independent sources covering the subject in depth, going back to at least the 1840s. The Primary Notability Criterion is amply satisfied. There's even a whole Christian theological dispute on the matter that isn't yet even touched upon by the article. This was an entirely meritless nomination. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:: I beleive this user is trying to make some kind of WP:Point and have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Artw (talk) 08:21, 31 December 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.