Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Knowledge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 5 August 2011 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 07:44, 5 August 2011 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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. Sandstein 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Common Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unverifiable. The reference consists of a broken link (not even the domain exists anymore), and I could find no reference that something like the "Library Microcomputer Hall of Fame" or the "Common Knowledge" itself ever existed. Brower Murphy is only mentioned in connection with the Library Corporation. Accordingly, the article has remained a stub since it was copied from the Open Access article 5 years ago. — Yerpo Eh? 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found the website reference archived here. [1] It reveals no more information than contained in the article, except that whatever Common Knowledge was, it failed. It also makes it clear that this is just a "Hall Of Fame" page on this particular site, not a record of some more significant institution. I can find almost no other reference to the project at all, outside of the two Wikipedia articles. Google Books returns two results referring to this subject, but I think one is an Italian translation of the Wikipedia articles. The other, here [2], could very well be promising, and gives us the first hint of what Common Knowledge actually is; a non-profit organization. But it's just a newsletter, and the mention may be trivial (fulltext is not available, so it's hard to tell.) With that the only possible source to give any useful information about the subject, and no other mentions anywhere I can find, I doubt that it is possible to demonstrate notability. gnfnrf (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (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.