Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial Shamanism

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 unanimous delete - Altenmann >t 02:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Shamanism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. An article on the same topic was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial shamanism. It was not a notable concept then, and nothing has changed since. The only mentions of the phrase 'judicial shamanism' that I can find are in the work of the person who came up with it, Stanislovas Tomas; it does not seem to be mentioned in any independent sources whatsoever. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This concept, in itself, does not appear to be notable. The consensus last time around (14 January 2009, precisely 1 year ago) was to redirect the title to Judicial activism. This was reverted a month later, and it's been in limbo since, with the only substantive edits being to add sources from Stanislovas Tomas, who is not independent of the subject (having coined the term, apparently). A redirect makes sense, I think, but if there isn't consensus for it, we need to delete the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, self-promotion, neologism, not a useful redirect to Judicial activism. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete What's wrong with Judicial Shamanism or Giant Bunnies ruling the earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthebordestpersononearth (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above editor's first 2 edits were obvious vandalism. This is much the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best OR. At worst, well... Peridon (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (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.