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.
A self-published author who believes Jesus is buried in Kashmir. Refs in article either don't mention her or just briefly mentions her. I'm unable to find reliable references about her, but there are a couple talking about her work from 2010.
Bgwhite (
talk)
00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The page is brand new! It is only a week old. It is developing and sources being added regularly. Give the page a chance to develop. Thank You.
Granada2000 (
talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000
Granada2000 (
talk)
01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: If you wanted to develop it, you should have done that in
Articles for Creation space and waited for someone to review your proposed article. Once you moved the page to mainspace you gave up any protections for "new pages" and allow it to be picked over by all the mainspace policies. I have no objections to the page being sent back to the draft space so that the advocate for the article can work on improving the submission, but strongly advise that the article not be moved back to mainspace until it is passed by a AFC volunteer to ensure that all policies are met before being re-debuted to mainspace.
Hasteur (
talk)
16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: I won't comment on the articles validity due to the the conflict with my own beliefs (or lack off), however as the Author has shown the desire now to have it removed
[1][2][3][4], and there appears to be no proponents to keep the artcile - it would seem a delete is the best action to take. Cheers
KylieTastic (
talk)
09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (to my own surprise) as I have added or made inline use of further citations from reliable sources. It probably needs trimming of
WP:OR, but I think notability is now established. –
FayenaticLondon21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: Fayenatic has done some sterling work cleaning up the article. Perhaps there is more here than first met my eye. I'm still concerned that the focus of the sources I've read which deal with Olsson directly result from simple sensationalism rather than any genuine notabilty, given the content of some of the news reports. If someone claimed to be Napoleon and then proceeded to vandalise Nelsons Column, would that be notable even if reported in the news? I'm not sure that it would.
Dolescum (
talk)
05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - simply because it's inherited notability from the tomb in Kashmir. I cannot see a single item of notability related to this writer, certainly doesn't even make the first step for academic notability, so what's the criteria?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
11:07, 31 July 2014 (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.
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.
A self-published author who believes Jesus is buried in Kashmir. Refs in article either don't mention her or just briefly mentions her. I'm unable to find reliable references about her, but there are a couple talking about her work from 2010.
Bgwhite (
talk)
00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The page is brand new! It is only a week old. It is developing and sources being added regularly. Give the page a chance to develop. Thank You.
Granada2000 (
talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000
Granada2000 (
talk)
01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: If you wanted to develop it, you should have done that in
Articles for Creation space and waited for someone to review your proposed article. Once you moved the page to mainspace you gave up any protections for "new pages" and allow it to be picked over by all the mainspace policies. I have no objections to the page being sent back to the draft space so that the advocate for the article can work on improving the submission, but strongly advise that the article not be moved back to mainspace until it is passed by a AFC volunteer to ensure that all policies are met before being re-debuted to mainspace.
Hasteur (
talk)
16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: I won't comment on the articles validity due to the the conflict with my own beliefs (or lack off), however as the Author has shown the desire now to have it removed
[1][2][3][4], and there appears to be no proponents to keep the artcile - it would seem a delete is the best action to take. Cheers
KylieTastic (
talk)
09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (to my own surprise) as I have added or made inline use of further citations from reliable sources. It probably needs trimming of
WP:OR, but I think notability is now established. –
FayenaticLondon21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: Fayenatic has done some sterling work cleaning up the article. Perhaps there is more here than first met my eye. I'm still concerned that the focus of the sources I've read which deal with Olsson directly result from simple sensationalism rather than any genuine notabilty, given the content of some of the news reports. If someone claimed to be Napoleon and then proceeded to vandalise Nelsons Column, would that be notable even if reported in the news? I'm not sure that it would.
Dolescum (
talk)
05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - simply because it's inherited notability from the tomb in Kashmir. I cannot see a single item of notability related to this writer, certainly doesn't even make the first step for academic notability, so what's the criteria?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
11:07, 31 July 2014 (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.