Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Thunder Child


 * 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. or at the very least no consensus for deletion. Whether the material should be kept in a separate article or merged elsewhere does not require an AfD. There is no consensus to delete the material especially since one of the delete votes essentially supports a merge. If Nick Pope is deleted at some point in the future and this article has been merged, GFDL issues can be dealt with at that point. StarM 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Thunder Child

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

Nick Pope walled garden non-notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but need work. Very notable. AWT (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you just copy and past this to lots of AFDs? "Very notable"? Would you mind explaining how you came to that conclusion? DreamGuy (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Review here.  Mentioned here (in David Langford's Ansible) although somewhat trivial. JulesH (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a somewhat pointy nomination. His books are notable, regardless of what subject they're on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets criteria 5 of WP:NB if nothing else. Raitchison (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." does not apply to Nick Pope or tons of other authors. He's a million miles away from Shakespeare. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Nick Pope. If this book were as notable as the Keep votes assert, the article would have some amount of that in there. Unfortunately, this article is like so many other UFO articles - It's all self-cited, with no outside information, reviews, analysis, assertions of notability. Stick it in the author's article. Notability not inherited. This same argument for all Nick Pope books. ThuranX (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nick Pope. Inadequate evidence the book itself is notable. Pope is not so notable that any book he writes automatically deserves an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anythign salvageable to Nick Pope, but that article needs some major editing to begin with anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, you cannot !vote to delete and merge at the same time due to GFDL concerns; it's one or the other (I assume smerge). MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as I also could not find any reliable secondary sources for this book. I also oppose a merge as I also support deletion of Nick Pope. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and work to source better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Nick Pope. No sources showing notability. People can re-create when they have them. It has the same problems as Operation Lightning Strike from the same author. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources for this article. JamesBurns (talk) 02:47, 3 January 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.