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 keep. My decision is mainly based on the sources and their descriptions provided by Cunard which have not been questioned. This decision does not mean that a merge/redirect discussion cannot continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Team[edit]

The Secret Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on a book promoted of conspiracists, the only source is a conspiracist website.The article includes no independent commentary to establish the factual accuracy of any of the claims made, as would be required per WP:NPOV/WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious problems understanding your claim about the WP:RS/N discussion. I read exactly the the opposite from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: multiple editors on the aforementioned thread had stated that the web site is not reliable. Delete this article and be done with it :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I believe that the statement ("His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously") invalidates these 1970s sources as dated and not reliable. A case could be made that these sources are uncritical, and could not be used for the purpose of establishing notability at this time. Contemporary sources would make a stronger case for keeping this page as a stand-alone article, but it appears that they've not reviewed the book "seriously". In fact, they appear to dismiss the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement does not invalidate the two 1973 sources I've provided. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Contemporary sources are not required.

    The Guardian article noted (my bolding):

    It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.

    That the book was reviewed seriously because it contained credible claims and "many of its revelations have been confirmed" does not render the 1970s sources unusable in establishing notability.

    Cunard (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (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.