46:
The page seems rather vague and there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support its existance as an established philosophy. Possibly irrelevant, but the external link tries to set some rather
214:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages.
165:"This is the main theory of the new economy and where you will find my original draft of Kin Economics. I do hope that you will read it, understand it and maybe even like it!"
167:
There's more like that. It's just a personal theory. Now, there may be something legitimate that has this name, but if so it's not the subject of the current article.
86:
Delete unless substantiated within the time period. Google search turns up 61 hits for "kinism" but only two were relevant and non-derivative (
65:
17:
132:
Delete. Just ran some searches on Lexis-Nexis and the like, and can't find any references in either the scholarly or popular press.
54:
Keep: It does seem pretty vague but I liked the idea! Whoever wrote this please explain and expand or else it may be deleted!
113:, or is it a valid topic that just doesn't show up on the web yet? I can imgine why it might not show up, it is hardly
143:
204:
105:
Those two hits do descibe something that may be encyclopedic, but they're the same text essentially, as is
133:
57:
77:
Delete as non-notable unless this can be substantiated. It reads like ranting the way it stands. -
69:
114:
163:
It's a vanity page. Check the link at the bottom of the page. Here's a quote from the website:
27:
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled
207:
191:
180:
171:
148:
125:
96:
81:
72:
154:
106:
168:
78:
197:
188:
177:
122:
93:
92:) but neither have anything to do with the apparent definition in this article.
90:
110:
87:
47:
28:
153:
Keep, as it seems to be real, but add to Pages needing attention
118:
121:needed. Agree that the current article needs work.
41:
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
8:
109:of the Google hits. Question is, is this a
56:(Unsigned entry at 14:10, May 12, 2004 by
117:and a bit obscure as well. Probably some
36:This page is kept as an historic record.
66:Knowledge (XXG):Pages needing attention
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
176:Delete. Well argued, Isomorphic.
1:
216:Please do not edit this page.
203:Delete: original research.
232:
64:Keep, stub and list it as
200:23:00, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
157:06:50, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
60:, the author of the page)
208:00:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
192:21:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
181:19:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
172:18:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
149:05:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
126:00:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
97:19:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
82:17:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
73:17:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
115:politically correct
205:Wile E. Heresiarch
119:dead tree research
107:at least one other
50:cookies, beware.
223:
58:User:62.255.32.8
231:
230:
226:
225:
224:
222:
221:
220:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
229:
227:
219:
212:
211:
210:
201:
194:
185:
184:
183:
158:
151:
130:
129:
128:
84:
75:
62:
44:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
228:
218:
217:
209:
206:
202:
199:
195:
193:
190:
186:
182:
179:
175:
174:
173:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
152:
150:
147:
146:
142:
140:
136:
131:
127:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
98:
95:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
67:
63:
61:
59:
53:
52:
51:
49:
43:
42:
38:
37:
33:
32:
30:
19:
215:
213:
198:Ben Brockert
164:
160:
144:
138:
134:
102:
55:
45:
40:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
155:Burgundavia
196:Delete. --
169:Isomorphic
48:malwareish
111:neologism
101:Comment:
79:Lucky 6.9
70:Alcarillo
187:Delete.
141:ubversiv
189:Deus Ex
178:Andrewa
161:Delete!
123:Andrewa
103:Unsure.
94:Rossami
137:adical
29:Kinism
16:<
89:and
68:.
145:E
139:S
135:R
31:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.