Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doing Good Works! Small Acts That Make a Big Difference


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Doing Good Works! Small Acts That Make a Big Difference

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Declined A7 nominee. Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly a social movement in the future but too vague at present for verification or notability. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP - The words Doing Good Works! Small Acts That Make a Big Difference are the title of the book.  See the amazon page the site Good books in bad times, Barnes and Nobles and many other book stores ( just google "Doing Good Works" )Please let me know what other info you would like and I can try and provide it for you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman9969 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)   — Dman9969 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For the Record - I don't know if this is true for everyone but the footnote links in the above vote are not working for me. But the book in question does indeed exist. Here is another link to the book just in case. Here is the problem though: the WP article under discussion is not only about that book or key people like the Pittsburgh Samaritan. Instead the article advances the idea that "Doing Good Works..." is either a developing or fully-formed social movement. But the only sources for this argument are the book (which is not linked to the article as I write this) and the two news stories about the Pittsburgh Samaritan and his YouTube video. Arguably, those sources only indicate that this is a single event, which causes a problem for notability. One could also argue that the article is violating the WP policy of no original research to argue that this is a social movement. There is also a lot of soapboxing in the article, however well-intentioned. Sorry my original vote was far less detailed than this comment; my vote remains the same. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-encyclopaedic. If someone wants to write an article about the book, with sources etc, fine - but there's nothing in this article to keep. Smappy (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage. Seems to be an advert for a book and website--Work permit (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable book and the article doesn't even read as being about the book. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (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.