Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme ELT


 * 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. All participants agree that there seem to be no references beyond "mentions". If better sources can be retrieved the article can be userfied for a better sourced revision. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dogme ELT
This article was created by a person involved with the organization as described here. Therefore, the article is in violation of No original research, Neutral point of view, and Conflict of interest. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think I pre-empted this! I have pointed out to Scott on his talkpage that it was a breach of Wikipedia etiquette to create this page. Having said that, the dogme movement is small but significant, and I am glad the page exists.  So I oppose any moves to delete it. BrainyBabe


 * You have admitted that it is a minor movement. It is therefore not notable and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. See this policy: Notability. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it isn't obvious, I vote to delete this article, as it is a breach of the above policies and borders on advertisement. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a notable movement, with plenty of coverage in the media and teaching scope_creep 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me towards the notability policy. It says that notable means being written about, not being well-known. Dogme is written about, though as I am not willing/able to do the legwork to prove this, I suppose my assertion can't count.  You assert that minor means non-notable but I disagree; many movements in art, politics, etc. may be minor but much written about (ie notable) and influential.  How long does the process of deletion take? BrainyBabe 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, the article was written by a member of the organization, and is violation of those policies as well. Given those problems, it is irrelevant whether it is notable or not. You reference movements in other disciplines but notability in those areas is determined by history, and this organization is not old enough to be even viewed through history. Deletion can take a while. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - unless references added I don't care who wrote the thing, but unless it has references to external web sites or articles then I can't see how it is notable. If it has "plenty of coverage in the media and teaching" then where are the references? --Mike 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added two more references ScottThornbury 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These references are both written by and added to the page by the author. They are in violation of the same policies noted above (No original research, Neutral point of view, and Conflict of interest). – Chris53516 (Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the offending references, and susbtituted two references to key works in the field, both of which mention "Dogme ELT" ScottThornbury 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because they "mention" Dogme does not mean they are references. I have changed the heading to "See also". This page is now unreferenced. – Chris53516 (Talk) 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The two references were chosen because they represent leading authorities in the field, and therefore their "mentions" of Dogme tend to validate its importance in the field, but I am happy with the "See also" formulation. ScottThornbury 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This begs the question: What or who are the references for the material you added to this encyclopedia about this topic? Is it just you? – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added the original reference into the body of the text, in compliance with the dictum (under NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH) that "This policy [i.e. NOR] does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person..." ScottThornbury 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate article. It is soundly written, albeit slightly slanted toward the topic. Its only problem is that it does not have precise references aside from the general reference at the base of the article. I vote for non-deletion, i.e., preservation. Dogru144 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It can't be "soundly written" if it is "slanted". That's an oxymoron. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need it to be shown that the subject has been covered, not just mentioned, by reliable sources. A Google search turned up an article which does actually fully cover the subject in The Grauniad, but it's written by members of the group and isn't a third-party source, despite the publisher. Factiva gave me three hits, but they're all passing mentions. There is nothing on which we can base an encyclopaedia article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:07, 15 November 2006 (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.