Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent community

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. Singularity 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent community

Intelligent community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Long essay-style article that fails WP:N and is completely WP:OR. Jauerback 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also a slight case of WP:COI, judging by the only contributer to the article. Jauerback 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Is it even notable that the Intelligent Community Forum gave Jimmy Wales an award? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentCommunity (talk • contribs) — IntelligentCommunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Response Regardless of whether or not it's notable, it's irrelevant to the article. Calgary 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as practically unsourced. Giving Jimbo Wales an award doesn't make the ICF notable, and even if the Forum were notable, that wouldn't make the concept so. Google Scholar gives some 500 hits, but those I checked seemed to mean something different. --Huon 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and this is an essay which appears to consist mainly of original thought. It has 4 references in 4000 words, and as far as I can see, three of them are not actually about the concept itself, but background information for the essay. Even if notability were established, this would have to be rewritten from scratch to become an encyclopaedia article. A shame as the author has obviously put a lot of work into it, and it may have merit as an essay, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Iain99 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For the length of the article the number/detail of the cited references is strongly lacking. Also the article is very heavily interwoven with analysis, in a manner that is expressly covered by WP:OR as being inappropriate for Wikipedia. Calgary 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think it consists of OR and the article gives undue weight to the subject. A mention elsewhere may be warranted but not an entire article. Brusegadi 22:55, 19 August 2007 (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.