Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryon (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.

I'll just be bold and redirect this to Lee Carroll. If there is anything I can salvage I'll summarise it in his article. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kryon

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

Not entirely sure how it was not removed 2+ years ago, but I can't see the notability of this. Tagged since December 2005 as OR/unreferenced this article contains far too much content that is not covered by reputable third party sources. Redirecting this to Lee Carroll would probably be the best option. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: To address the points of the Google test raised in the previous deletion discussion it is clear that "Kryon" returns a plethora of unrelated sites. Adding the word "channelling" does yield other sites that are related, however. I think there is some element of notability here but I don't think that the article in its current state should remain. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge In the absence of reliable sources merge into articles on author and books (if they are notable) where appropriate then redirect. This article at the moment is unsupported OR. Nuttah68 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check the article on the author first--the merge, though not in my opinion a bad idea, would change the nature of the article.DGG (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I don't think the content is worthy of inclusion, but the concept is worth mentioning at the author's article and this article redirected there. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This article is the subject of the humor page Wikipedia:Huge message boxes, a parody of tag madness written in May 2005. I got here when I checked up on the article's current status, and I was amazed to find that not only does it still have about as many templates, it's under AFD yet again! szyslak 06:08, 17 September 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.