Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adiramled

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. --Coredesat 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adiramled

Adiramled (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article itself recites that there are no reliable sources showing this person's notability, or even existence. Fails WP:V. NawlinWiki 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete,, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep – At this point, I am not sure. The editor, or editor(s) who take the time to rewrite this piece, may be able to make a “Feature Article”. However, the research necessary to accomplish this task seems taunting Shoessss |  Chat  22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: No sources! It could be a hoax, or something similar, and we can't reliably confirm any of this is true.Ravenmasterq 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What do you mean by "reliably confirm"? Please explain. Do you mean that to reliably confirm something you'd have to travel (physically!!) to a research destination to find the source material? Or do you mean that Google will work fine? I'm just wondering on what system you base your judgment. Thanks.

• Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Notability is another concern even if we could confirm the article's content. --Huon 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment– Just “GOOGLE” and you can make a case either way. However, I believe there is enough information to keep. However, I am an in_clusionist. Shoessss |  Chat  00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could you tell us what sources there are for the information we have? The article itself admits that there are few if any, and it doesn't give any. --Huon 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The sources appear to be named in the article. You should read it and see for yourself. If you look you'll see that just before or just following each quote the source is named. Are you making the statement that the named source(s) isn't/aren't "reliable"? I'm confused, because what you actually wrote is: "it doesn't give any", when, in fact, the "journal" is named and cited throughout. Please explain.
• Comment The Journal mentioned in the article was published by the article's subject, and apparently major parts were written by him, too. That's hardly a reliable source as mentioned in WP:RS. See also WP:V#Sources. Furthermore, the Journal may be cited, but it's not a source for the article's content except the citations. An example: Bryant’s known writings span the years 1900 through 1916, but very few appear to be widely available. Even within occult circles Bryant’s name is largely unknown. - Says who? This line alone, if true, also raises notability concerns. --Huon 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that this article doesn't meet with the requirements of "Sources" found at WP:V#Sources, but, on the other hand, it also can't be considered a "questionable source" as defined at WP:V#Sources. As for WP:RS, the article itself cliams that it is a "guideline, not a policy". The present article may be an interesting case. What do you propose for instances where the subject of an article has never been covered by a third-party, yet the source material is available and noted? If you're philosophy were followed to the letter, nothing NEW would ever see the press. Or am I not following you?

• Comment Due to Wikipedia's everybody-can-edit nature, we have other standards than, say, a peer-reviewed academic journal or a newspaper. Something new sees Wikipedia only after it saw those. According to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, no article should be based on self-published sources, as this one is. Per WP:N, something which has not been covered by a third party isn't notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. That's why articles on such topics tend to get deleted. Admittedly, WP:N too is a guideline, not a policy, but I fail to see why we should make an exception here. --Huon 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the above statement by Huon regarding not making an exception here, and, following his lead, this means that...sheesh...this means there's a TON of material that needs to be deleted from Wikipedia. I better get started.

• Delete per "very little, if anything, has been published regarding his life and works", with not prejudice against recreation when/if such sources are ever found spazure (contribs) 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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.