Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis E. Dec


 * 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   keep. This article, in its current condition, is a rather poor specimen. While there is a clear consensus to keep, once it's cleaned up to be compliant with policy I doubt that there will be much content left. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec

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

While this guy is dead, so no BLP violations occur, practically the entire article is based on unreliable sources (blogs and other personal web sites with no discernible editorial policy). The only reliable sources used are government records (primary sources), and these are used for trivial facts like his date of birth, army enrollment etc. This biography is also full of original research an speculation about the guy's mental condition, with virtually no reliable, third-party source to back up the claims. The entire article is written from an obvious POV in tabloid style, promising further "revelations", etc. I started deleting the most egregious parts of article, but then reverted myself, and brought this AfD because I don't see salvageable material due to lack of reliable sources. Pcap ping  06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  07:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  07:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the fanclub is obviously not independent it cannot be used as a source for contentious material. On the other hand: primary government sources are perfectly acceptable for basic stuff like birthdates because most publications don't mention them (even today). The biggest reason to keep is that his life has been turned into a play and he's been the author of several notable works of writing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break, that play, "The History of Heen" has exactly 4 google hits. . His writings are notable according to who? A couple of fan sites? Pcap ping  19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No third-party, reliable sources. II  | (t - c) 06:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This page  has problems, true, full of original research and speculation and problems with an unecyclopedic tone.  But the material seems valid, and Dec was notable enough to have an article.  Just a shorter, better article.  --Lockley (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This page  has a lot of original research, true, but that's because 99.99% of the research on the man is amateur research. Mr Dec is notable enough to have an article of his own. Freddiefreelance (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. See how many google hits this writer gets. His works have been used as lyrics by a number of very well-known groups including Psychic TV. Really, how can anyone even THINK OF deleting the article on Francis E. Dec? Who's next? JRR Tolkien? Juryen (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He gets a few thousand ghits (a few hundred distinct ones); that's nowhere near significant. The comparison with Tolkien make me think you're trolling. Pcap ping  06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kenneth Anger only gets a few thousand hits on Google, too, and you may be unfamiliar with his work as well; does that mean you should mark his entry for Deletion? Just because you have no direct knowledge on a subject does not mean it isn't notable. Freddiefreelance (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (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.