Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge to Total Freedom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Withdrawn. Sources were found for the website, causing nominator to withdraw nomination. Please be aware that AfDs are Not for article clean-up. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bridge to Total Freedom[edit]
- The Bridge to Total Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has one sole reference = xenu.net. This website should neither be considered reliable nor NPOV. Therefore, I recommend the removal of this source and propose a cleanup for the page. If a cleanup cannot be made, I propose removing this page. --Scifilover386 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - at least one of those external links can be changed to a reference, and while xenu.net is critical of CoS, it is considered reliable. Other online references for CoS subjects are hard to find because CoS keeps suing them out of existence. --Versageek 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: We're not here to debate CoS legal actions, we're here to debate the merit of a source. Xenu.net is most certainly not a neutral source as a majority of the information listed on the site is negative against CoS. Additionally, at best, its credibility is similar to a blog. On the website, it even says, "I, [HIS NAME], am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions." Therefore, this is not a reliable source and violates WP:SPS. In adhering to WP:POLICY, I strongly recommend removing this source. If someone has other information or academic sources that they can cite, great. If not, this page does not have supporting information and should therefore be deleted. Scifilover386 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCLEANUP AFD is not for cleanup. Tag that it needs references. Please withdraw your nomination, and in the future only make them for articles you believe should be deleted, not just those that just need some work. Dream Focus 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator must have missed the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reference at the bottom of the page. Simple mistake, could happen to anyone. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap. I missed that source. I'll revoke this. Apologies all for wasting your time. I'll format the page to reflect that source. Scifilover386 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can hit Google news archive search at the top of the AFD [1] and find that article there among other news coverage of this. Dream Focus 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap. I missed that source. I'll revoke this. Apologies all for wasting your time. I'll format the page to reflect that source. Scifilover386 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 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.