Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life line

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 No sources provided despite tagging in November 2006. - KrakatoaKatie 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life line

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

This topic is not psychology, science, referenced, or notable. The neuro-linguistic programming article is more than sufficient. Eliz81 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Although I created the article, I'm not attached to it. But I don't think the AFD is well founded:

• Not being part of a subject is not a policy-based basis for deletion, I'm not sure why those are in there other than to bolster up the one word that does count. Unreferenced articles have always had a communal consensus that the best treatment is to determine if the article is reasonably capable of becoming encyclopdic, and if so, to tag it for improvement. The deletion reference tables are removed to keep the policy page short, but they were very a long standing part of policy, and actual consensus seems unchanged. Lack of references and need for improvement are listed as grounds for improvement (truly unverifiable clearly doesn't apply). Notability -- I'm not sure if "life lines" as a concept is notable. Possibly it is, possibly it isn't, which is why I have decided to comment. See below. WP:JNN - "it's just not notable" is not a good deletion debate argument. But there should be evidence of notability if sought. NLP article is enough -- This comes down to notability again. Not every concept needs its own article. If it is non-notable then that is sufficient to justify deletion. But if "life line" as a concept is notable in its own right, and more than a definition article is possible, then a separate article may be justified.
• Notability is the one genuine reason provided. Notability would require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Life lines as a concept does have significant coverage in its field, but little outside it (then again the same is true for some concepts in many fields), and the sources it's in are "reliable", being published books and writings on and offline by many independent people worldwide. These sources aren't independent of the subject (obviously; same way that sources about flavors of quark aren't usually independent of physics), but are independent of the original concept creator (ie not mere self-publication or advertizing of a concept) and have wide recognition in the field. The notability guideline doesn't specify criteria for a concept that's notable within in a field, but many specialized concepts have articles, so one must assume it's not a foregone conclusion.

Apologies for not giving a definite answer. If cites are needed that it's widely referenced in NLP, let me know, I can probably look that up. For reference, life lines are also known as "safety lines" [1][2]. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Has been flagged for verifiability since November. That's plenty of time and still there are no sources (although if sources were added, then I'd reconsider based on what the sources say). Guinness 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete current contents, then make a redirect to Lifeline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 18 July 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.