Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Emergency Plan


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Long Emergency Plan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Several third party links but how many even mention this plan, still less attest to its notability. &mdash; RHaworth 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As requested, I've made an independent evaluation on the Talk Page. Absence of reliable third-party evidence of notability—coupled with indications that the article was promotional—led me to conclude that the article does not currently meet WP eligibility criteria. Therefore, I have to support deletion (despite the apparent good intentions of the author of the article, who may not be fully familiar with WP policies).--MistyMorn (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not sufficient reliable sources to suggest notability. ItsZippy (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not Delete - I know that since I am kinda new to Wikipedia my opinion is probably not going to make much of a difference here. I understand that lots of articles are written on Wikipedia about small books and minor internet memes and little stuff that doesn't get much TV time or press releases, similar to this article's subject. I respect the opinions written above, however I am not sure if it is possible to conclude that a promotion is happening out there, because I don't see why anyone would be promoting it, as there is no-one asking for money or advertising anything on the subject's website. Anyway, I do personally know the person who published the final copy of this Wikipedia article, because I tried to write about this subject too, but I obviously didn't write about it in the approved way because other Wikipedia editors requested that I improve the article, so I asked the current author to re-write it better for me, and he did improve it and added more links to my list that showed where it is being shared on the internet. I know he's not a promoter, but he does believe there is value in the article's subject, and he believes that people out there are sharing it 'cuz they are a little freaked out by all the nasty drops in the stock market and the media keeps talking all the time about recessions or another Great Depression coming soon. So I agree, the article's subject is not a big media topic, it's just like a lot of lesser-known subjects that Wikipedia has articles about. Lillybellie2011 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome! The fact that you're new doesn't mean that your opinion isn't valued, but please read the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: it will give you a good idea about what we consider when deleting a page (for example, we don't judge an article by what is already on the encyclopedia, because then we'd quickly get into a situation where we allow anything).  In this case, it fails the General Notability Guideline - it has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I would recommend that it be deleted. --Slashme (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

____________

''*Non-vote -As this Article's publisher, I will of course not vote on the matter. I would like to clarify that my ultimate goal is to produce worthy articles for the encyclopedia, and if this article does not meet the admission requirements I am not offended if it is deleted. If any editors are looking for evidence of notability, the best I have found is through Google's search engine. The words "long", "emergency" and "plan" have many millions of search results, but I have found 3rd-party references to the article's subject by searching for it in different search methods. Several of the examples would not allow links directly to the example though, so I agree that the links in this article are perhaps less then ideal. EnochHenderson (talk) 17:54, 21 August 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.