Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Improving memory


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Improving memory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia does not include original reearch or essays/theses made by students for their doctorate degree. See for example, WP:SYN, wp:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTESSAY Timeswantedred (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC) — Timeswantedred (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The article is a spinoff from our article memory which links to it as the main article for that section. The nomination offers no evidence or argument - just a list of WPs contrary to WP:VAGUEWAVE.  The topic has great notability as ways of improving memory have been written about for thousands of years.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now it's not WP:VAGUEWAVE for the dear Colonel Timeswantedred (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with rewrite to deal with WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTESSAY. It is extremely well sourced and a notable topic. Although it shouldn't be written as a how-to guide, it could conceivably show different ways of doing things. For example, instead of You can memorize pi (not in the article, just used as an example) we could write Among common ways to improve memory are memorization of large numbers... so long as a source is available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We will probably have to move this to Memory improvement per WP:NOUN if the article is kept. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as Crisco 1492. There is no question that the topic is notable and a proper area of study. --AJHingston (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly renaming. Let me point out that the article was created by a group of students working as a class project, a type of activity that Wikipedia wants to encourage, and it must be very discouraging when such things get deleted.  This article could certainly use improvement, but the topic is legitimate and the contents are far from hopelessly broken. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crisco 1492. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it's an educational project: the students' first attempt won't necessary be in a Wikipedia style, but we should feed back to them and show them how to improve it, not delete their work. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (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.