The result was Delete. Note: This debate is a complete mess, and most of it involves editors talking about editors, and has been ignored. The statement that the article lacks RS proved true. Both references in the article at closing are from the scientology catalog. No evidence of notability or coverage from Reliable Sources. JERRY talk contribs 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Only one source given is not self-referential. Notability not established in secondary sources. Prod was removed, so taking to AfD. There is only one source in the article (Corydon) which is not a primary source, self-referential source (i.e. Scientology.org). Even the Corydon source does not refer to this book specifically, just books in general "these books..."). If this book is notable and is discussed and anaylzyed in secondary sources - that is not evident or asserted in the article's present state. Cirt ( talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
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) 15:47, 21 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) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Note: This debate is a complete mess, and most of it involves editors talking about editors, and has been ignored. The statement that the article lacks RS proved true. Both references in the article at closing are from the scientology catalog. No evidence of notability or coverage from Reliable Sources. JERRY talk contribs 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Only one source given is not self-referential. Notability not established in secondary sources. Prod was removed, so taking to AfD. There is only one source in the article (Corydon) which is not a primary source, self-referential source (i.e. Scientology.org). Even the Corydon source does not refer to this book specifically, just books in general "these books..."). If this book is notable and is discussed and anaylzyed in secondary sources - that is not evident or asserted in the article's present state. Cirt ( talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
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) 15:47, 21 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) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
reply