Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Lightning Strike

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. or at the very least no consensus for deletion. Whether the material should be kept in a separate article or merged elsewhere does not require an AfD. There is no consensus to delete the material especially since one of the delete votes essentially supports a merge. If Nick Pope is deleted at some point in the future and this article has been merged, GFDL issues can be dealt with at that point. StarM 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Lightning Strike

Nick Pope walled garden non-notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but need work. Very notable. Build articles up, expand knowledge, don't tear them down. AWT (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, how about you provide evidence of it? DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Review here [1]. I'm guessing there are more, but don't have time to search. JulesH (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a somewhat pointy nomination. His books are notable, regardless of what subject they're on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria 5 of WP:NB if nothing else. Raitchison (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. "?! Nick Pope? No offense, but WHO?!? That criteria is for people like Shakespeare and Poe and so forth, and in practice some of the famous people like that do not even have articles for all of their works. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nick Pope. If this book were as notable as the Keep votes assert, the article would have some amount of that in there. Unfortunately, this article is like so many other UFO articles - It's all self-cited, with no outside information, reviews, analysis, assertions of notability. Stick it in the author's article. Notability not inherited. This same argument for all Nick Pope books. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Nick Pope. Inadequate evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And I am shocked that there are keep votes here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same rationale I have made in the other two Nick Pope book AFDs. MuZemike (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nick Pope. No sources showing notability. People can re-create when they have them. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (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.