Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Good Man


 * 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. --Core desat 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A Good Man

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - prod removed by WIkistalker without explanation. This is an article on an essay written by a non-notable person about a non-notable person published in a non-notable journal. In other words, fails WP:N. Otto4711 12:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment i think you'll find a comment in the edit summary that says, your issues with notability require improvement, then i replaced your prod with a request for expert attention from the psychology project.  you then deleted the request for attention when you put this afd up.  you don't know that this is not notable, beyond your own pov because you never gave it any time to be improved and cited.  --Buridan 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The AFD period is time for the article to be improved and cited. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * no afd is a process for deletion. to use afd to force improvement is to delete improvable content and it is inherently using bureacracy to bully people, which is against the spirit of wp as best as i can tell.--Buridan 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - WP:COATRACK -- Additionally, it doesn't have one non-wikipedia+mirror google hit. I didn't expect many because it claims to be an essay published in a journal but I expected atleast one. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per above. (NN). - Rjd0060 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced, non-notable and textbook Coatrack. --RaiderAspect 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. JJL 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any such journal as the "Journal of Alternative Scientific Research", nor would I expect it to be peer-reviewed science.  No other references offered or found: doesn't meet WP:Notable or WP:Verifiable.  Accounting4Taste 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.