Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit-Am


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Brit-Am

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

Contested prod. Article creator added a lot of sources from the subject, but none about the subject. Fails WP:ORG, since there are not enough reliable independent sources giving significant coverage to this organisation. MAny different things are called Brit-Am, so I tried searching with logical related search terms added, which gave some 195 distinct Google hits( (3 Google news hits, with the first a press release, and the second returning no results). In the end, the only potential independent reliable source I could find was possibly the Skeptical Enquirer, but i could not access this article not judge its reliability or depth. Fram (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even if this was to meet our notability requirements (which I don't think it does) then the article should be started from scratch using multiple WP:RS, after this one has been deleted. Verbal   chat  14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OR -- no sources except self-published books and a personal web page. Highly non-encyclopedic. Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no third party sources means WP:Notability not established. Sole reliance on WP:SELFPUB sources is against that policy. Use of bare ISBN of (apparently self-published) books is especially problematical, as these ISBNs do not appear to be listed in WorldCat & similar, to render details (or even existence) of these books verifiable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the above remark: Perhaps the books do not exist? It could be that the thousands that we think were sold and which we received money for were just a product of our imagination? The ISBN numbers that were paid for and registered in the ISBN authority in the State of Israel may also be imaginary?? The books were published by Russell-Davis Publishers and copies deposited with the National Library in Jerusalem. Or at least we thought so. Perhaps it was all a day-dream? And the hundreds of members and subsidiary branches that at one stage were set up throughout the world and from which correspondence and activity reports were supplied could also have been non-existent? Who knows? Wonders will never cease. What about the 1000 to 2000 visits per day that the Web Site had been receiving for the last few years? And that is only the beginning of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yairbritam (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As they are self-published, they are pretty much invisible here. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote your books. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As for some reason you (Doug Weller) have a recorded history of active prejudice against myself it would have been proper for you to refrain from comment at present. There is a difference between promoting publications and recognizing that published works exist and are read. Self-published or not they do exert some influence. Yair Davidiy.
 * Comment Funny guy. 'Anyone who has disagreed with me in the past shouldn't comment on me here'. Sure, that'll work. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The question is therefore whether the existence of these books can be verified (and thereafter whether they are a reliable source & whether their contents verify the statements cited to them). Yairbritam's lengthy & incivil screed is therefore irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: They don't have to be reliable sources to be used to explain the beliefs of the group, as long as it is clear that that is how they are being used. But that is all they can be used for. The issue is the notability of the group. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from Yair: The books do have ISBN numbers. They are registered in the Israeli National Library and available for international inter-library loaning. They also have US Copyrights. They are advertised on the web and not only sold by Brit-Am but also by major book-sellers such as Amazon, etc. [Are you suggesting that Amazon and others are claiming to have books in stock that do not exist?] Reviews have been written about them and are available on the web. The reactions of readers with verifiable names and addresses have also been published. All this is in the public domain. If all this is not sufficient evidence then how can one accept the existence of anything?
 * Comment: this is a whole bunch of assertions, not backed up by any source (and therefore of no evidentiary value). But it is also largely beside the point -- even if their mere existence can be established, there is no compelling evidence that they are reliable sources. The fact that 'Russell-Davis Publishers' appears to have published nothing other than these Brit-Am books would appear to indicate that this publisher has no substantive existence and is merely a vehicle for Brit-Am's self-published works. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Yair: The above comment (by "Hrafn) said: "there is no compelling evidence that they are reliable sources". Whether or not they are reliable should not be what is under discussion here. Nevertheless the remark in question apparently reveals the motivation of some of our present critics. Disagreement with the subject matter appears to be a motivating factor in denying the existence of active market support for it. You would rather it not be so: Therefore you declare it non-existent! Typical.
 * "Whether or not they are reliable should not be what is under discussion here." Wrong! WP:GNG clearly makes reliability of sources an issue in determining notability. The "remark in question" merely reveals that these books are unreliable sources (as they fail both WP:RS & WP:RS). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it will change anything, but Russell-Davis is the name of the father of the creator of Brit-Am. See for evidence. As that page states: "Brit-Am is associated with Russell-Davis Publishers, Jerusalem. This company publishes all Brit-Am publications. It is a part of Brit-Am." Fram (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage in third party sources, systematic POV and COI issues. If eligible sources are eventually located, this would need to be completely rewritten. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and no RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No RS, COI (both the Yair accounts), etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wandering Comments It's news to me that the Khazars were closely related to the Angles and Saxons. I, and more importantly most scholars on the subject, thought they were a Turkic people. Also, the existence of an ISBN number is no indication that a book has been published. It merely reflects that a title has been registered. It is interesting to examine the publications of Russell-Davis Publishers. Well, it would have been if I could find any other than 'Brit-Am' stuff. An unusual name for an Israeli firm. Not that that's relevant to this discussion. Self-publication? Maybe. There doesn't seem to be a Russell-Davies website, which is unusual for a publisher. A distinct concern to me is the lack of reliable third party sources. Blogs, zines, forums, in plenty. Solid stuff - not much. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on above "Wandering Comments": Whether or not you or others thought the Khazars were what they were not is besides the point. The degree of Israelite Ancestry amongst the Khazars and their relationship to Anglo-Saxons and others is not supposed to be under discussion here. The article describes the beliefs of Brit-Am and not of yourself. Yair Davidiy.
 * Merge and redirect with British Israelism. It's a fairly non-notable organisation, but it develops well established BI ideas, so should really constitute no more than a sentence or two in the main BI article. Paul B (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks 3rd party sources, appears self promotional. Artw (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a NN. Even if the books existed, NN books do not confer notability on the organisation.YobMod 09:28, 7 May 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.