Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphabiography

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabiography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've prod'd this before and that was (fairly) reversed - but it simply has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Roscelese (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several discussions of this technique for teaching writing through Google Books and Google Scholar. In my opinion, the coverage was significant enough but other editors should express their opinions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere mentions don't bring it to a very high level of significance. Yakushima (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. The mentions in toto are sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice Mere mentions in reliable sources do not make a subject notable. ----Divebomb is not British 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Alphabiography[reply]

Keep - Lots of sources, although not many "major" sources, and is used in many teachers lessons. As a stub, I don't see a reason to delete it. - Pmedema (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable term used in teaching. Likely to be searched for by students. Not really covered in any other article. References provided. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Only 881 exact hits on Google, makes me agree with Kuguar03 for the purposes of en-wiki. However, I think it's a reasonably common in teaching circles, I did an Alphabiography in High school. I think it should be moved/transwikied to Wikiversity as an assignment topic. Aeonx (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems to be nothing but a neologism. JIP | Talk 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not impressed with the references in the article (at all), but Google produced a few hits. I've added one to the article, and I think it can scrape by. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Transwiki, per Aeonx. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per WP:N. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.