Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Team


 * 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. My decision is mainly based on the sources and their descriptions provided by Cunard which have not been questioned. This decision does not mean that a merge/redirect discussion cannot continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article on a book promoted of conspiracists, the only source is a conspiracist website.The article includes no independent commentary to establish the factual accuracy of any of the claims made, as would be required per WP:NPOV/WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The book has some academic references - Google Scholar seems to be unable to keep different editions apart, but there seem to be about 80-100 references here. Following those references, the book is (somewhat) discussed in this article by Chip Berlet. I suspect there are more sources to be found. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete. ludicrous overcoverage, amounting to strong promotionalism--almost a G11; if notable, it should be rewritten from scratch.  DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't know how this works, but adding a comment: this book is notable and very deserving of an entry, but the current article is not good at all. I'd suggest getting a good entry, not just deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Pls see below; Original comment: Delete per WP:PROMO; not adding value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, according to this Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread, the aforementioned conspiracy website http://www.globalresearch.ca could be reliable for establishing notability. There are also the sources mentioned by Stephan Schulz.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have serious problems understanding your claim about the WP:RS/N discussion. I read exactly the the opposite from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: multiple editors on the aforementioned thread had stated that the web site is not reliable. Delete this article and be done with it :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This is a 1973 book review.   This is a 1973 book review. </li> </ol> Here are less substantial sources about the subject:<ol> <li> The article notes: "The Secret Team by L. Fletcher Prouty (Skyhorse, $17). This book is tremendous because Col. Prouty, who worked for special operations forces under JFK’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, reveals who really runs our government. These are the high-level bureaucrats who remain while administrations come and go, and run amok without our elected officials knowing what’s happening."</li> <li> The article notes: "Fletcher Prouty is known to many people as the author of The Secret Team, the mid-1970s epic history of the founding and corrupting of the post-World War II American intelli­gence establishment, and scores of articles on international finance and national security affairs. For a handful of cogno­scenti, he is also known as an expert on railroads and the author of annual encyclopedia entries on the subject. But for millions more people around the world, Colonel Prouty is better known as 'Mr. X'-the enigmatic Washington nation­al security insider played by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's recent nationally acclaimed motion picture about the John Kennedy assassination, 'JFK.'" This is a passing mention but can be used as a source in the article.</li> <li> The article notes: "His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously. In it, Prouty called the CIA, and the cold war, a cover story, which had allowed elements of the military and intelligence community to work on behalf of the interests of a 'high cabal' of industrialists and bankers. It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed. A mass-market paperback was published by Ballantine in 1974, but the book immediately became hard to find. Prouty believed it was 'disappeared'; at any rate, copies remain collectors' items."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Secret Team to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Notability (books) says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have provided two such sources. Regarding the promotional concerns: Editing policy and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, a lot of the mentions in reliable press are just brief ones, but there's probably just enough there to poke it past the notability bar; and there are probably more print sources that are not online. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete for now at best as, although the listed sources above are suggestive of improvements, there are still concerns and I share thrm as they have been listed above. This would need need better evaluation to see if there is in fact enough, and to ensure there's not trivial and fluff coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect over to the author's related page, prehaps specifically L._Fletcher_Prouty or else delete this. I'm unpersuaded that short snippet references to this work count as sufficient reliable source coverage. As well, the likes of Executive Intelligence Review are in no way valid to use as references. Prouty as a human being is notable, yes, but not everything that he's written and/or said is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect -- the sources offered above are passing mentions and the book is discussed only in context of the author. I don't see independent notability here; i.e. no stand-alone reviews. Perhaps redirect (name only) to author's article, but that's about it. The content of the article is still WP:PROMO garbage; there's nothing there that's worth merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that most of the sources presented here are not substantial coverage. However, the 1973 articles from the Garden City Telegram and the New Castle News (Copley News Service) are substantial coverage. Notability (books) says significant coverage in two reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability. Lankiveil's comment that "there are probably more print sources that are not online" is supported by this quote from The Guardian obituary I linked above: "His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously." Cunard (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I believe that the statement ("His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously") invalidates these 1970s sources as dated and not reliable. A case could be made that these sources are uncritical, and could not be used for the purpose of establishing notability at this time. Contemporary sources would make a stronger case for keeping this page as a stand-alone article, but it appears that they've not reviewed the book "seriously". In fact, they appear to dismiss the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That statement does not invalidate the two 1973 sources I've provided. Notability. Contemporary sources are not required. The Guardian article noted (my bolding): "It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed." That the book was reviewed seriously because it contained credible claims and "many of its revelations have been confirmed" does not render the 1970s sources unusable in establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (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.