Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Secret des Vikings (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Le Secret des Vikings
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This entry fails WP:BK and it should have been deleted in the first nomination. The topic is also a completely non-notable fringe topic. If you disagree please specify, with evidence, which criteria of WP:BK are met. Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd be surprised if this passes WP:NBOOK, really should have gone first time around. There is an argument that says we'd be best off keeping it, just so there's just the one page for the fans of this cruft to dump on rather than it all being spread out over a bunch of our Vikings-related articles, but it should be easy to RBI any remaining nonsense. Delete. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: it would seem Moreschi's argument above would be in favour of a keep, no? I agree with the general line of attack, and having been through this in other articles, it seems like a useful way to control fancruft. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, not really. It's theoretically convenient, but the possibility of lazy administration is no excuse not to follow a perfectly reasonable guideline, WP:NBOOK. In the long run we're better off keeping this cruft off the site altogether (because it's not even notable cruft), rather than giving it a dumping ground. Moreschi (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: no sourcing, no indication that it meets WP:NBOOK, no substantive coverage discernible through Google News/Books so does not meet WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment, as was said in the previous AfD, "Having an article which explains that this book is pseudohistory is a Good Thing." This doesn't mean we can ignore WP:NOTE, of course. That said, it is possible to find some secondary citations, e.g. Jacques Pradel on Europe 1, La stratégie des Vikings on 17 May 2005. Of course "has appeared on TV once" isn't a great proof of notability, but it's better than nothing. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * on reflection (see above), weak delete. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability. I couldn't find sources for it either using my reliable sources search engine or Google News.  Google News Archive and Google Scholar turn up a couple hits, but nothing really usable for our purposes, I don't think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (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.