Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lerner-LaRouche debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lerner-LaRouche debate
The topic of this article is a debate on economics that occured 34 years ago. It has no sources, and no assertion of notability. Previous ArbCom decision holds that LaRouche sources are not reliable (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) and no other sources for this are available. Willmcw 01:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this before the LaRouchie Sockpuppets get here. Karmafist 01:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the first page of results on this page are from Lyndon LaRouche affiliated pages so WP:V is a real problem with this article. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete concur with above; the article is also probably a copy vio of this page:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110abba_lerner.html --FRS 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If an event happened, it is notable enough for inclusion. As long as it can be shown that it did indeed happen--which can be easily done by, for instance, inquiring of Queens College--then it should stay; the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article. And I don't see how it can be considered a copyvio. Kurt Weber 00:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -Willmcw 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- See, the problem is that your premise is false. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is indeed notable. As for verifiability, see my earlier entry. As I said, "the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article". If this means leaving just a stub, so be it--a stub is better than nothing at all. And I fail to see how it is a "slight re-wording"...it contains the same facts, but it's hardly a re-wording of the particular presentation of the facts that FRS linked to. Kurt Weber 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -Willmcw 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if non-LaRouche sources can be found. Rangerdude 04:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rangerdude, does that mean you will vote Delete if the sources can't be found? One sentence articles often fall under WP:CSD, so the non-LaRouche sources would have to include more than "it happened". Karmafist 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll support deletion if a source cannot be found. If a source showing to the effect of "it happened" can be found, then I support marking it as a stub and developing it with additional non-LaRouche sources as they are found. Rangerdude 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rangerdude, does that mean you will vote Delete if the sources can't be found? One sentence articles often fall under WP:CSD, so the non-LaRouche sources would have to include more than "it happened". Karmafist 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The debate discussed in this article seems to have no significance other than as an apparent point of emphasis in the biography of one of the people who participated in it (Lyndon LaRouche). So, accordingly, mention of the debate belongs in the article about that person, if in fact there are any credible sources that may be used to describe it. Aratuk 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- A mention, yes. But the debate itself deserves its own article. Kurt Weber 22:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Any or all mention is what I intend. The debate has importance only insofar as the life of Lyndon LaRouche, simply because there is no evidence of interest in it external to its association with him. Aratuk 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- A mention, yes. But the debate itself deserves its own article. Kurt Weber 22:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. LaRouche-cruft, with obvious verifiability problems. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Impossible to say without knowing whether it actually happened. If it did, it's notable as one of the few sensible things LaRouche has said (and should be merged). Gazpacho 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not important outside of LaRouche circles. The debate doesn't seem to have had any impact other than being a "win" for LaRouche by connecting a policy to Hitler.--Bkwillwm 00:48, 3 November 2005 (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.
