Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cipher in the snow


 * 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. -- Longhair\talk 10:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cipher in the snow

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Essay on obscure book(?) that has an external link to a strange page that claims to be a true story. SolidPlaid 06:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs more details, but keep. Elmao 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note user above is a main contributor to article. -- Kl4m  Talk Contrib 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, but i first give the vote, after i saw the google results, and only then contributed. Elmao 03:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; enough external source are provided. StaticElectric 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough external sources to confirm it being a factual subject. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Two of the references are to the story - a one-pager. No evidence of notability I can see. Enough external sources of notability are certainly not present - please provide links if you have them. MarkBul 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, something that apparently has been around for more than thirty years and that has multiple external sources providing evidence of its verifiability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not so obscure that we cannot afford an article about it.   Bur nt sau ce  17:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google Books and Google Scholar show citations in the context of moral education. But it needs cleanup to be more objective (we don't need the gucky moralising and hyperlinks to every other word) . BTW, the title should be Cipher in the Snow, but that can be dealt with later. Gordonofcartoon 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up. Gordonofcartoon 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! nice job (see how it was :) ) Elmao 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's verified now, but is it notable? SolidPlaid 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair question. Around 10,000 Google hits, and ones on Google Books and Scholar (see above) and the News Archive. It seems reasonably popular on the moral education circuit. Gordonofcartoon 03:03, 20 September 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.