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 I've closed as no consensus leaning towards keep noting that the article has had a substancial cleanup since nomination and that the majority of deletion recommendations were prior to this cleanup. A new AfD focused on sources and notability wouldnt be inappropriate. Gnangarra 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Completing a nom. Original reason for deletion follows. Tizio 11:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADVERTISING IT WAS CREATED BY THE FOUNDER OF THE SITE, ITS UNENCYCLOPEDIC GET RID OF IT. User:86.13.202.173

delete - it has zero merit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.202.173 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 May 2007

1. neutral semi-notable but needs a hell of a clean up Think outside the box 12:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE THIS VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MER-C 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Speedied per WP:CSD#A7. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Impossible to judge notability based on the absolute mess that's there (though it certainly looks non-notable). Considering an acceptable article would have to be a 100% clean-sweep rewrite, it can't hurt to delete this (and start over, if anybody feels like it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability criteria as per WP:WEB. Jay†Litman 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Destroy with glee. Tomer^talk 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per the commentary above. Burntsauce 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep, article has substantially improved since it was first nominated for deletion. Burntsauce 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the references. It is listed as notable by so many respectable groups, and some of them are more than mere mentions, eg. Nasa, Forbes ,Family Education, so it meets all our requirements. Some of them are however nonsense: eg. Yahoo lists it first because it lists in alphabetical order, etc. I will work on it this weekend & clean it up. It's a usable start for the refs. it does indeed show the detrimental effects of COI on writing a proper article. DGG 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the NASA recommendation, and several others. If NASA considers it a good reference for your kids... clearly theres something of value there.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both Alkivar and DGG, passes the NASA test. RFerreira 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I cleaned up the review list, as detailed on the talk page. it may be interesting to see the one by Peter Jacso--famous among librarians for extremely critical reviews, & this is one of his nastiest. [1].DGG 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clean up and keep per Alkivar and NASA test. bbx 07:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per MER-C —A • D ^Torque 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per DGG, in the hope that more people like him will improve the page even more. At least it seems notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:06, 12 May 2007 (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.