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. Walton^One 10:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Hijackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Apparently non-notable anarchist (or as they call themselves "anarchitect") group; article lists no third-party coverage. Delete; I only do not request speedy deletion for lack of a claim of notability because the article has escaped attention since the year 2003 when it was created. - Mike Rosoft 11:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does it really take that much effort to click on a link to the homepage of the subject and find, right before your eyes, reams of evidence of non-trivial independent third party coverage?

I would expect that such a serious matter as nominating an article for deletion would merit a little more consideration; this nomination fails basic standards of due diligence. Skomorokh ^incite 11:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete. In reviewing the sources provided, One is the site of the group itself (Unsuitable, as a primary source), another is a dead link (the anarchitecture week site), and a third is Youtube (not generally considered a reliable source). Some google hits such as a Wired article herehint at the group selling a tank (!) at auction in September, while others feature a blog for the group. Yes, I can confirm that the group exists - but is it notable? I cannot determine that from the information available to me. If there are indeed sources beyond those I can find on Google, please add them to the article - that would satisfy Notability and probably result in the article being Kept. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as no progress has been made to provide additional sources, I must recommend that the article be Deleted, with no prejudice against the creation of a properly sourced version in the future. I have changed my above recommendation accordingly. The rationale still applies, in that the article fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Argument for NOT deleting Personally I think that the page is a useful point of reference, I came here from the Circle Line Party entry and would have been left wanting without it. I do not believe it is invalid "becuase it has not been modified since 2003" - in fact there is an argument that if it has not been modified then it is a perfect article. It gives useful links to find out more and as such I feel it should be left intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.248.1 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 October 2007

I moved the above misplaced comment of User:129.230.248.1 from this AfD's talk page with the edit summary as the !vote. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 17 October 2007 (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.