Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual of the angel of death
- 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. I,m sorry Tara but the consensus here is that there are no reliable sources for this subject and the one (and it's only 1) source you are trying to present is questionable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ritual of the angel of death[edit]
- Ritual of the angel of death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unclear notability/existence. Every Nearly every reference given is a (homemade) Youtube video or wiki site. Google search for "Ritual of the angel of death" book results in five pages, all Wikipedia. Search for "Ritual of the angel of death" Romania is the same. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. No reliable sources seem to be available. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. One of the listed sources is a book. Publisher and copyright year are part of the source note for the book. Many Wikipedia articles don't have a single book among the sources.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The issue is not whether the source is in book form or online form; it just has to be reliable. As for the cited book, the citation in the article says that the information is to be found on page 472, but according to Amazon the book is only 50 pages long. ... discospinster talk 01:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected that page number. Sorry for confusion.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (That page number cannot be right either. Only 59 pages in the book.) Youtube is not a reliable source, and the book only cites that "Some observers believe ..." something to be true. That is a little bit shy of 'Notable' and 'Well Sourced' to me. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article contains unsustainable material; WP:FRINGE applies with regard to sourcing and attribution. Citing discussions is not sufficient evidence of reliability. Whiteguru (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book authored by Leilah Wendell in front of me. Have you read it or seen a copy?
Several Wikipedia articles that I have seen use You Tube videos as references and sources. The article on Fred Rogers (children's television personality of the 1960s and 1970s) is one of them.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia:Video links & Wikipedia:External_links best sum up my feelings on the 'Youtube as Cite' issue. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this the book you are talking about? ... discospinster talk 23:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have an earlier edition of the book printed long before 2005 without the plug for the website that 2005 edition has.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 07:19, 16 July 2011 (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.