Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L/L Research

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 Ancient astronauts. NW (Talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L/L Research

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization doesn't need an article, given WP:ORG. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. I suppose this is a borderline case. They have been involved in one or two movies which apparently pass our inclusion threshold (apparently, anything on imdb is fair game?), plus a number of ISBN'd books, some of them with Schiffer Publishing, apparently a publisher that itself passes our inclusion threshold(?) It is better to keep this documented in one place than to have individual articles on people involved, book titles and "entities" pop up all over the place. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with no WP:RS claiming or asserting notability, and no RS showing significant coverage. Verbal chat 10:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it could always become a redirect to ancient astronauts: even if L/L Research isn't notable enough for a standalone article, I am sure it is arguable to give it some mention, if only in a single line, in an article on the wider topic of New Age UFO literature and/or channelling. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd consider that reasonable, personally. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Me three. Verbal chat 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or follow Dab's proposal: The reason we require mainstream coverage is because, without it, it's impossible to follow WP:NPOV, particularly with fringe views only discussed by proponents. Either you allow the article to violate NPOV, or you synthesise some rebuttal, violating the "No Original Research" policy. So, if we cannot write the article in line with policy, we shouldn't have the article. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 20:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources cited appear to be marginal-to-WP:FRINGE. Also should consider deleting article on their film The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow, as it lacks any third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check this google books search (for 'Elkins Rueckert'): [1]. about 100 hits, some of them clearly independent third party discussions of channeling etc. ([2][3]). But nothing that couldn't be addressed in a paragraph at Mediumship and/or ancient astronauts. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ ~~Reluctant keep.~~ Reluctant delete (just experimenting). since the article was created with other purposes as some of which was revealed above by dab, which do not conform to the ones of wikipedia and can be classified as practices of WP:Game and WP:wikilawyering. Logos5557 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Logos5557 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Logos5557 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- what absolute twaddle. Also, AfDs are not on article content but on the validity of article topics. If you're unhappy about the article content, you need to fix the article, not delete it. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything sourceable and Redirect to Ancient astronauts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The issue here is whether LL Research is notable per WP:ORG. I am not at all convinced that it is (I find very few independant sources that even mention it, and then only in passing. I also question whether any of the few third-party sources that do mention are reliable), and so I am leaning heavily towards Delete, but keeping an open mind. As for the article content, I agree that some of it could probably be merged into Mediumship and/or Ancient astronauts (and similar articles). Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't notable.Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ancient astronauts as the best alternative to deletion. A fair amount of the content is sourced, so there is no reason to delete sourced content. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.