Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Knight

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 redirect to Salvation Mountain;. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Knight

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

Largely unsourced, overly promotional, should be merged with Salvation Mountain, or deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Salvation Mountain; a large portion of his article really isn't necessary and despite a large amount of Google hits, he hasn't done much outside of that one work and preaching Christianity. SarahStierch (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the real reasons why the nominators want to delete the section on Leonard Knight. I was reading other articles about Slab City, California and Leonard Knight's name was mentioned in most of the other articles I read. I wanted to read more about Leonard Knight and went to wikipedia where I found his article. I do not believe it should be deleted. It should be linked to the other sections that the nominators mention.

Whether you believe Salvation Mountain is a worthwhile creation, one must concede that it is a large undertaking that appears to have been created and built by Leonard Knight over a period of more than a decade. In my humble opinion, anyone, who spends more than a decade of their life creating a gigantic work of art or whatever you want to call it, deserves an article in wikipedia. When one reads about a creation of such a large scale, it is human nature to want to know more about its creator and perhaps glean why someone would spend so much time on something or what drives them on the project.

Based upon information from other website and newspaper articles about Slab City, I wonder if the nominators are residents of Slab City who have a disagreement or dispute with Leonard Knight, or are perhaps jealous of his article.

I would think that nominations for deletion should be very specific as to what facts are incorrect or "overly promotional." I find it odd that a website devoted to providing information would delete anything based upon vague complaints that an article is largely unsourced, overly promotional or a "large portion of his article really isn't necessary."

I think it would be better for the nominators to either edit the article appropriately or move on to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenville01 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then make a redirect A redirect is needed, but this is a promotional article that should not remain in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced information is not allowed on Wikipedia and almost the entire article is unsourced. What is there does not indicate notability by Wikipedia's inclusion standards at WP:N. The reference and a sentence or two could be merged to Salvation Mountain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2012 (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.