Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bokononism

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. krimpet✽ 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bokononism

Bokononism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fictional religion, and a non-notable one at that. Beyond the notability issue, problems with the article range from extensive quotations from a science fiction novel still covered by U.S. copyright (WP:COPYVIO), a bulleted list of trivial quotes (WP:TRIVIA) and a vocabulary guide of sorts (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). At best, the copyright violations need to be deleted from the history, as soon as possible. (jarbarf) (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Bokononism was frequently mentioned in mainstream obituaries of Vonnegut, including those in the New York Times, The Economist, and The Telegraph, establishing its notability. The other objections may be good reasons to revise the article, but are not good reasons to delete the article. Chuck (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Bokononism isn't a fake religion; it is component of a classic American novel. The other criticisms are valid. Perhaps just have a link to another Wikipedia article for the novel, Cat's Cradle, as it is a better article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat's_Cradle - The other objections may be good reasons to revise the article, but are not good reasons to delete the article. bohappa —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• This fundamentally excellent article is a credit to wikipedia. No way should it be deleted!Benny the wayfarer (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  Furthermore it seems possible that the proposed deletion is really motivated by an editor, who spends alot of time combatting vandalism, being offended by the comments of another concerning their earlier attempt to delete quoted material, that they are a vandal. I strongly feel that this is an abuse of procedure. It is certain that there is no question about notability.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article may need revising, but not deletion. GABaker (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Bokononism is a vital part of Vonnegut's masterpiece Cat's Cradle. It is extremely well known and very vital to literature. 70.116.18.139 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Possibly delete and restart from scratch. The claims that copyright violations exist in the edit history need to be taken very seriously, and must be removed per the law, Wikipedia policies aside. RFerreira (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Cat's Cradle - the term/"religion" has no notability beyond its treatment in the book, to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, great - but I do think this is what would have to be shown in order to warrant a separate article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and merge Duprass and Granfalloon into this article. —Keenan Pepper 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, an important and valuable invention of Vonnegut's, and certainly something that should be available to the public. Edit as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.139.168 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 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.