Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Howard (2nd nomination)

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. Spellcast (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gail Howard

Gail Howard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Original research essay...a blog post rather than a scholarly encyclopedic evaluation of a book. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment appears the previous AfD was for an article that liked the book...this appears to be a new article by an editor that does not like it. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research and essay criticizing a non-notable lottery prediction system. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I cleaned up the article a bit and removed most of the BLP violations. The person of the article appears non-notable, I would not be surprised if her system was non-notable, and a critique of her system is certainly not notable (even if it were published in a reliable source, it should not get its own article). If the article is kept, it should be renamed to reflect that it is about the gambling system, and the original research should be removed. I left it in for now, just so people could get an idea of what the article was like. Fully cleaned, it was only one sentence long. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, and of no merit anyway. 2005 (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (but not speedily, I don't think any of the criteria apply). I can't find any reliable secondary references, so not notable; also original research. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete.Non-notable. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (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.