Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Can't Tell the People


 * 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   merge to Georgina Bruni .  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You Can't Tell the People
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the book made it to a revised edition. I'm a little disgruntled by the links to lanridpath.com, but checking the edit history shows that the article is not purely self-promotion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but need work. Very notable. Build articles up, expand knowledge, don't tear them down. AWT (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the guy who runs the place, if an article doesn't have reliable sources it should be ruthlessly deleted. Deletion is a form of building up the encyclopedia. If you believe it's "very notable" then please provide evidence of it that meets Wikipedia criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, WP:JNN 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:VAGUEWAVE DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - A seems to have a fairly wide following, easily meets WP:NB IMO. Raitchison (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any rationale or evidence for why you think it meets WP:NB? And if you come up with any concrete reasons, could you edit the article to reflect that, please.DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Rendlesham Forest incident (or merge anything potentially useful that's not already on the other page). People assert that it's notable or passes WP:NB, but give absolutely no indication of why they think so. And, certainly, if it does meet WP:NB it should be trivial for one of these keep voters to go to the article and edit it to prove so. Voting keep without improving the article doesn't improve Wikipedia at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, per DreamGuy's rationale. There's enough explanation of her nethods and such to warrnet inclusion in her article or in the article for the incident, but there's not enough notability or outside criticism substantiated for a separate article. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Georgina Bruni. I couldn't find any reliable sources establishing notability as an independent article; the basic information of the book is already mentioned in the Georgina Bruni article. Plausible search term. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Georgina Bruni or Rendlesham Forest incident. If it's notable then where are the sources showing notability? Please present some. Google books only shows a few UFO books mentioning it. Idem for google scholar . --Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * merge the lead into Georgina Bruni - which should make that a considerably stronger article, and to a large extent her reputation and the books reputation are inseperable (questions asked in the house of lords, the stunty launch, etc). I'd leave the synopsis section out of being dropped since it is largely recovers ground already covered in Rendlesham Forest incident. I don't beleive we should merge either article into Rendlesham Forest incident. Artw (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Georgina Bruni: Information is already detailed in the Bruni article, not notable enough to stand on its own. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication that this book meets WP:BK. Non-notable book about a notable incident. Sources relating to the underlying Rendlesham Forest Incident do not add notability to this topic, for which no non-trivial third party references exist. HrafnTalkStalk 06:25, 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.