Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable Last Facts


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable Last Facts
Delete: This article is noting more than self-promotion by the writer for his book. Notable Last Facts are in no way a legitimate, reconized study. Cdukes 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, advertising for book provided as only reference. Noteworthy as some of these events might be, it still reeks of listcruft.  --Kinu 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC); updated 03:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No value. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting. -- Marvin147 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as a societal trend.  With more links it could become more than a promotion for the book.  These items are constantly popping up in the media now.   Logophile 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kinu. Rather messy. Stifle 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, this is not a very good reason. Let me clarify. On WP:WWIN, we see that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The page does not appear to belong in an encyclopedia. In addition, it appears to be original research. WP:NOR is an official policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I wish Mr. Brahms the best with all his work, but would recommend he take a step back and allow someone else to consider writing about the concept in the future. Stifle 11:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, please. Stifle 11:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gmandwb is the primary contributor to this article, and is also the "Mr. Brahms" who coined the term, despite his third-person references above. Stifle 11:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed Vandalism: Sir, please refrain from editing other's posts, especially during a vote. I have reverted the text "Notable Last Facts are in, reconized study." to the original "Notable Last Facts are in no way a legitimate, reconized study." Cdukes 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Great article, great topic, an enjoyable read. Is it supposed to be a 'study'? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gmandwb (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) blanked all the text and moved the page to No name. I have restored it. It is not eligible for speedy deletion by author request as other people have contributed to it. Stifle 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was going to vote delete (I hate self-promoting articles) but I'm seeing this article evolve and it's interesting (and notable to boot). As the self-promotion gets more and more watered down I think we'll have an article worthy of Wikipedia. Ifnord 19:01, 9 February 2006 (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.