Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyLady


 * 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. Sr13 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FlyLady

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability, and declining to classify the article as CSD G11 spam. Still, delete, given notability and WP:V concerns (as the sources do not appear "independent".) Xoloz 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - not notable. Why is this yahoo group and so on notable? Maybe their book will be notable. I can't see how this is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the website is amateurish, the article is ramshackle, but flylady has received extensive coverage going back several years. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep, provided someone adds those references to the page. Some footnoting and stuff would be swell. General clean-up of the article to make it encyclopedic, you know what I mean. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs a lot of work, but this article clearly documents a number of points that argue this is a significant cultural phenomena. I know, self-help movements or fads are always suspicious, but the people behind the website have published 2 books with mainstream presses & run a large email list. It meets my critereon that someone coould be expected to consult this article. -- llywrch 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep even with a mainstream press, the books have to be noticed. Keep if there are reviews to include. (and edit, to omit the description of the system. Better to read the website.) DGG (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Also, I placed a Wikify tag on it. Bearian 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some references. 202.54.176.51 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Fantastic job, 202! Around here we call this a WP:HEY and I think it's a noble calling. The formatting on the references is perfect. But I see you've been doing good work for a while. Consider getting a username. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I use the Flylady system and have found this article to be a useful summary. Sanders2378 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that's actually completely irrelevant to whether this article should be kept or not. The issue is notability, not utility.  Xtifr tälk 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep mostly due to the excellent work by the anonymous user at IP 202.54.176.51. WTG Anonymous! And don't let them pressure you into getting a useless username! (Especially not if you've got a static IP.)  :)  Xtifr tälk 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep FlyLady system is one of the more useful self-help techniques, based on a relatively simple idea, with no expectation of a cult following. It's common sense on a mass scale.  Mandsford 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that's actually completely irrelevant to whether this article should be kept or not. The issue is notability, not utility.  Xtifr tälk 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, shut up. Mandsford 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, be civil. I don't care if you want my help or not, but if you really want this article kept, you should listen to experienced Wikipedians, rather than merely being rude to people who are trying to support you.  Xtifr tälk 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Be civil, huh? I don't take it upon myself to tell other people whether I think their argument is relevant or not.  You're not trying to "help" anyone.  You're showing off, and looking more foolish in the process.  Lesson to you, son.  NOBODY wants your advice.  You're not experienced, you're not civil, and you just think you're impressing everybody with your skills.  Mandsford 11:52, 23 July 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.