Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formulating knowledge for learning

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 delete.SoothingR 10:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formulating knowledge for learning

Looks like an ad for a website. I don't think the title makes for a potentially useful article, especially given the number of other articles on learning. ··gracefool |☺ 04:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 2.5 years ago with a time machine... or in 5 days, whichever is more convenient. Melchoir 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. Phrase gets tons of Google hits... all spam. --Allen 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. --Terence Ong 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant spam. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, blatant spam. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's certainly an ad. Paul Carpenter 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Without the external link, the article reads like original research. Following the link makes a clear case for deleting for advertising. (No way to redeem the article.) —ERcheck @ 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, non article, and so forth. --Jay(Reply) 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not an ad, but it's a stub that points people to a website with original research Ruby 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by someone who significantly expanded SuperMemo article. Promotion. Pavel Vozenilek 19:52, 15 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.