Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jonestown Carnage

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 of the debate was no consensus. Fl owerparty☀ 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonestown Carnage[edit]

Article does not establish notability of the book ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been around a while and a number of editors have worked on it. Someone put it up for speedy, that didn't seem right to me so I have nominated it for AfD. I have no opinion about it other than that notability is not yet established. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have contributed extensively to this article and I believe that notability has been established according to Wikipedia's policy. I have included several links to major local publications (Mainly The Savannah Daily News) and the band's debut album (High Impendence Of Super Horse, 2005)was voted as one of the best albums of the year according to Georgia Music magazine. The band has been together for over 12 years and is a well known "undreground" indie rock band (The links to The Savannah Daily News will verify my claim).

~~I vote for this article to stay. >+</19 May 2006 (UTC) User = Meanax~~

- Comment I struck through Meanax's above comments, as they were posted for the wrong AfD. I, myself, have no particular opinion one way or the other on this page. -- Kicking222 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – but notability needs to be established – Gurch 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is established, i.e. sources showing it has a circulation of 5000+. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit to note that the book's assertions are controversial. It is a controversial book about a notable subject. We can afford to keep this kind of article, as long as we edit to let everyone know that the book is not considered authoritative.

See also Talk:The Jonestown Carnage. The book discussed by the article (if it actually exists, and whether or not it has a circulation of 5000+) is very interesting evidence of late 1980s propaganda techniques used by the Soviet Union, and is therefore of a lot more historical interest than the many articles about minor characters on teevee shows and in video games that are allowed on wikipedia. --arkuat (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As article stands, no evidence of notability, and just a recounting of a minor conspiracy theory that apparently didn't even merit rebuttal. -- FRCP11 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this article as no consensus has been reached, I find it difficult to call a consensus of "no consensus" from just four votes. Rje 11:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent notability, not even as an example of Soviet propaganda. All it needs is a mention somewhere in an article on Soviet propaganda, as it seems to have had a negligible impact. Sandstein 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but verify. Going to the bother of translation suggests notability. Andjam 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for book reports, and is most likely OR T e ke 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Peoples Temple - tremendous overlap between the two (maybe by the same author?). Merging will reduce the advertising/copyvio of the nominated article. B.Wind 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borderline notable. Grue 17:13, 29 May 2006 (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.