Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recaptured literature


 * 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. --Core desat 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Recaptured literature

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has no sources, and I can find no evidence that this term is used by academics, reviewers, or anyone at all. Every Google hit is a reference to this article—there are no other online references to this term anywhere. When the article first appeared, I asked the originating editor to provide print references for this term. No such references have been produced. Shelf Skewed  Talk  06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V. If anyone adds sources to the article, I'll reconsider. Deor 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation, unless some kind of reliable sources are found. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. After twenty minutes of fruitless searching, I've found that this movement is either in the beginning stages and has yet to receive mainstream acceptance or just doesn't exist.  ShelfSkewed is correct that most Google hits (there are only twenty-two for the exact phrase, by the way) are Wikipedia mirror sites, and I highly doubt reliable sources are available after looking through a few Lit journals at my disposal.  WP:V and WP:NOT. María ( habla  con migo ) 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 18:59, 7 June 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.