Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1953 Fitzgerald Report

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. Michig (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1953 Fitzgerald Report

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

Conspiracy theory article with sourcing only to WP:FRINGE websites. Fails WP:GNG and no WP:RS seem to be available. There is one syndicated column I found, but it seems to be written by a journalist known for... less than truthful reporting. Needs coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it only seems to have coverage in one dubious source and multiple garbage sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has such severe problems with bias and lack of independent sources that I don't think it can be fixed. Besides, the article is self-contradictory, by claiming that the report was published in the Congressional Record yet also "suppressed for the last 53 years". The content of the Congressional Record may be largely ignored (most of it is not exactly fascinating reading), but it is available in numerous libraries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. lacks reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons above. Personally, I intensely dislike conspiracy theory articles. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 22:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kill it with fire. Basically this was a "report" by a senate committee staffer, whose language quoted here indicates it was pure POV rather than evidence-based, and which has been rightly ignored (not suppressed; it's hard to claim suppression when something was actually published by the government) for 60 years. I'm disappointed to learn that this article has been lurking here for five years. Kudos to Sailsbystars for finding it and nominating it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2013 (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.