Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barathary gland


 * 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   merge to Nuwaubianism.  MBisanz  talk 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Barathary gland

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article provides no references at all apart from several obscure self published books and two links to a discussion group. Policy is clear on this "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". WP:BURDEN Deconstructhis (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This page was created because the Nuwaubianism page was getting very large. It deals with a specific and easily-encapsulated aspect of the Nuwaubian belief system.  Because of this, I recommend keep but certainly a merge would be better than a delete. The references are to self-published books because this belief system is best-represented by the self-published books of the cult that has developed the belief system in question. Just as you would use Tolkien's works as the best source of information on Tolkien balrogs, you would refer to York's books as the best source of information on York's "barathary gland" concept. -Moorlock (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but balrogs also have been covered extensively by other writers. If this barathary gland has not, then is it really notable enough to support an entire article?  Powers T 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if we accept that York is an authoritative source on Nuwaubianism, according to my interpretation of policy, it still doesn't follow that York can be the *only* source in support of the material in this article, which is currently the case. Tolkien articles contain sources other than Tolkien. In my opinion, considering this article is currently exclusively sourced from primary material, neutrality comes into play here as well as notability. Deconstructhis (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be a worthwhile breakout page from the Nuwaubianism article, given that article's size, even if this is sourced only to primary sources.  Those sources are at least authoritative in the context of Nuwaubianism, and are therefore reliable.  It is a fringe theory, but let's face it: if you can't tell that this is a fringe theory, you're too little to be messing with Daddy's computer.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But is it a notable fringe theory? Powers T 15:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe theory contains something which I consider relevant under the circumstances: "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." Deconstructhis (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuwaubianism is: this article is a permitted content fork made because of the size of the head article. I don't think that separate notability is required for this spin-out; but if others think so, then re-merging this back into the head article would be preferable to deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although "forking" is occasionally permitted when dealing with articles of sufficient length, it does not appear to me that the practise then in turn permits an exception to the requirement in policy that the "spin off" article(s) need to provide more than a single primary source for the material being added. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nonsense that isn't properly sourced.--Sloane (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  —Sloane (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (or if needed, merge) into Nuwaubian. This particular part of the mythology is not known or relevant outside the cult. A good example of the sort of fringe article that is not appropriate. DGG (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge References can be found for this but the topic may be best covered in the relevant section of the Nuwaubianism article. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, fringe junk. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Sources are light (at best) and I think merge would be a good editorial call. But otherwise seems to be a reasonable spinout article on the topic of this Fringe cult. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added something to the talk page of the Nuwaubianism article a few moments ago that I think might be relevant to this discussion. Deconstructhis (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (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.