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 delete. --jonny-mt 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yekishim[edit]

Yekishim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Declined proposed deletion. Article appears to be a combination of original research, a dictionary definition, spam and a religious essay. The title attracts two (excluding wikipedia) google hits, nothing in books or scholar searches - Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the nom reasons. Non-notable. All g-hits are wiki pages. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for all reasons stated above.Unschool (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent "hodge"+"podge" of original research of a neologism. The staggering two Google hits are enough of an indicator of the lack of coverage by independent media/sources. I've removed at least five signatures of IP editors from the bottom of the badly malformed article. B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (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.