Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Diana: The Evidence


 * 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, no consensus to delete. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana: The Evidence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. The topic is not notable. Also see WP:COIN. -- Jreferee    t / c  14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's always hard to determine if sources are reliable when a conspiracy theory is concerned, but the nomination doesn't say anything about the writers. If they are indeed investigative journalists of note, the book deserves a mention too. Can you expand on the authors? - Mgm|(talk) 14:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep These books sell like hotcakes, which in itself, may be notable, but the journalists themselves are not in the mainstream media, and are virtually unknown. If the article is kept, it needs additional sources and work, otherwise  delete. scope_creep (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Death of Diana, Princess of Wales . I imagine a conspiracy theory page will eventually be spun off.  If there were an individual article about every JFK conspiracy book that had been written in the past 45 years, we'd be at 2,100,000 by now. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Guys, the article is about the book, not the actual theory. On top of that, it's relatively well sourced for a stub. GlassCobra 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - per Scope creep and GlassCobra. - jc37 (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep unfortunately this type of book does seem to sell, mind you there are a whole raft of these Diana conspiracy books. Maybe they could be lumped together in a list. RMHED (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2007 (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.