Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route to Infinity
- 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. Note: editor comments about editors were ignored. JERRY talk contribs 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Route to Infinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Notability not established in secondary sources, heavy reliance on self-referential sources. Anon-ip removed prod, so sending to AfD. Only one source used is not a primary source (Xenu.net) - all other sources used in the article are primary sources. If the article is discussed enough in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources so as to satisfy the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability - that is not asserted in the article's present form. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating; these deletions should be struck as examples of sincere but ignorant bureaucratisation - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First WP:No personal attacks. Second, notability and sourcing support WP:Verifiability, which is official policy. If the article cannot be independently verified against openly published sources, it should not be included. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I am not really convinced his particular one is important. DGG (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no external refs cited - although Scientology and Hubbard are clearly notable not every book by Hubbard is. NBeale (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article has only pro and anti scientology propoganda links. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (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.