Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egalitarian dialogue

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 (non-admin closure) strong argument made that article subject is notable. Darkspots (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian dialogue

Seems to be an original philosophical essay. Author removed prod tag without addressing this issue. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm, not a good article is it? I have fixed some of the more egregious formatting errors, given it some cats, tagged it etc. The nature of the way it was formatted is indicative of something cut'n'pasted from somewhere but a Gsearch doesn't produce an obvious source. The subject is perfectly encyclopaedic - Egalitarian dialogue takes place when different contributions are considered in terms of their arguments’ validity, rather than assessing them according to the power positions of those who carry them out - I guess I better add that as the lead :-) BlueValour (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having had a good look around, there are plenty of sources available, in addition to those in the page. I have added a linking section from Dialogue. Unless this can be shown to be a copyvio I don't see a good reason to delete it. What the page needs is a thorough cleanup by someone expert in the topic (which I'm not :-)). BlueValour (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a notable subject with plenty of sources. I must congratulate the nominator on his/her ability to work so fast: to be able to read and evaluate the article content and check the sources in the two minutes between article creation and prod tagging is pretty impressive. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep subject is notable, most importantly as being a partial response to the quintessentially 20th century critique of power politics--a subject that is clearly notable. Subject is listed in multiple peer reviewed journals. But the article does need some work.Protonk (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to be sufficiently substantiated Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely rewrite I will take Protonk's word that the subject is notable, but I agree with the nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahcir (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 April 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.