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.
This person does not seem to pass
WP:BIO. There is a lot of controversial discussion on the talk page, but in the end his claim towards notability seems to be that he wrote one or two books. This doesn't suffice. -- Sent here as part of the
Notability wikiproject. --
B. Wolterding15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
delete as unnotable. the present article is the result of much to-and-fro under the title of
Irminenschaft before it became clear that this is a case of
WP:VANITY. Coulter's book could possibly be is mentioned at
Germanic neopaganism, which is fair enough, but there are no grounds for an independent article.
dab(𒁳)15:37, 27 October 2007 (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.
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.
This person does not seem to pass
WP:BIO. There is a lot of controversial discussion on the talk page, but in the end his claim towards notability seems to be that he wrote one or two books. This doesn't suffice. -- Sent here as part of the
Notability wikiproject. --
B. Wolterding15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
delete as unnotable. the present article is the result of much to-and-fro under the title of
Irminenschaft before it became clear that this is a case of
WP:VANITY. Coulter's book could possibly be is mentioned at
Germanic neopaganism, which is fair enough, but there are no grounds for an independent article.
dab(𒁳)15:37, 27 October 2007 (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.