Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreedomKnot


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FreedomKnot

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable invention/product, which fails WP:N and smells like a WP:MADEUP violation. The article, created by the knot's self-proclaimed inventor, has been awaiting reliable third-party sourcing to demonstrate notability for over three years. A Google search for "FreedomKnot" turns up over 7,000 hits, which at first glance seems impressive until one finds out that all of these are related to the website name, which the owner appears to have done a good job of promoting. The only non-primary source I can find is the one external link already present in the article. --DAJF (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No established notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. What limited web presence it has seems to be entirely the result of one person's tireless (some might say 'desperate') self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete.  I do not think WP:VERIFY can be met at the current time. User:Richard Lazear stated as much in the article's talk page: "The FreedomKnot wiki page however has been carefully constructed using current and historically factual data that no one knows sum total better than I."  Also seems like a clear cut case of WP:SELFPROMOTE.
 * Just as an aside, the alleged non-primary source mentioned above (Ian Fieggen's shoelace knot site) is actually picturing a different knot than the one presented on the official FreedomKnot page. As shown in the diagrams on the official page, the FreedomKnot is a doubly-slipped single/double granny knot.  Ian's site shows the reef (non-granny) form of the knot.  My "single/double" terminology here indicates first overhand knot (i.e. half-knot) is a normal single overhand, second overhand is a double.  For instance a surgeon's knot, as generally shown (e.g. ABOK #1209), would be a "double/single" reef knot. --Dfred (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:18, 28 February 2012 (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.