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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research, vanity, and/or nonsense -- JimR 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax for the coveted 0 hits. Nuff said. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax. What's an anthology of original poems? Dlyons493 Talk 14:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an anthology of poems never published before the release of the anthology in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanity. No relevant google hits on "Thomalism" alone, either. -Meegs 16:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. *Dan T.* 16:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While many of these claims may be correct if wikipedia is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia it should not be limited just to articles that are popular. The essence of an encyclopedia should be to help perpetuate learning and if that means it involves supporting an individuals theory then so be it.

• Comment The above remark of 6 December is by 64.136.26.227 (whose contributions are worth a look). Your viewpoint on this is contrary to the No original research policy. -- JimR 09:15, 7 December 2005 (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.