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.
Delete unknown person prints out pamphlets and sends them to various places, nobody but the author seems to care (note no Google news hits. Despite the article's aggrandising tone, this is no more notable than a run-of-the-mill letter to the editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do what you will. Alex Tiefling, Andrew Lenahan, Boffob, and Redvers: you just added your valuable contributions to history as the moderators who insisted The Sovereign Liberties was "spam" and "advertising" and therefore had no place on wikipedia. a screenshot to remember this moment by. enjoy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoffat (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why would anyone interpret that as a threat? stating cause and effect, over which i have no control, is not a threat.
A screenshot! No, not that, anything but that! I'll be remembered as history's greatest monster! *runs away and hides* Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"yes, a screenshot! you'll pay..all of you...!" is that my line?
Speedy delete (G11/G7) — I would cry out a quote from the Monty Python spam skit, but I have been told to be more serious, so here it goes. User, who obviously has a conflict of interest with the subject, it trying to promote his/her propaganda through Wikipedia. This is textbook spamming, not to mention soapboxing. However, the creator, as mentioned above, has ever so kindly requested deletion, so I have tagged as G7. MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
conflict of interest? if an accountant writes an article on accounting, is that a conflict of interest? no neutrality is being broken with this article. try again.
"it trying to promote his/her propaganda through Wikipedia." speculation...it's NOT MY propaganda.
i have requested its deletion? your logic fails you. nice try.
"Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." --WP:SPAM sorry, i guess i missed the part where the article fits this criteria? try saying it is "original research" or "too non-notable", you'll have better luck arguing it.
Delete pamphlets can become notable, but not until some reliable source writes about them beyond just a mention. This one hasn't even got that far. Ooh, screenshot me harder! that's how I like it! Totnesmartin (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
again, do whatever you will. you don't have to support it, but you don't have to support it being erased from wikipedia either. al support is notable and will be rewarded.
How would it be rewarded? you'll say something nice about me in your next pamphlet? Big wow.Totnesmartin (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wow, you can use sarcasm! me too! Amoffat
Definitely speedy delete as spam marketing of horribly nonnotable press release. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, attempting to use Wikipedia as a web host to publish a non-notable manifesto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." --Original research.
Speedy delete (G11/A7) As quickly as possible. Luinfana (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does not meet criteria "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." --WP:SPAM Amoffat
On the contrary, meets criteria perfectly: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I see absolutely no encyclopedic content. The entire article is a jumble of long excerpts from the pamphlet itself and a few short sentences that describe what the publication looks like and where it has been allegedly distributed. How is any of it notable? How is it nothing more than simply spam and advertising to promote a cause? It's utterly pointless, and I stand by my speedy nomination. Luinfana (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapboxing. The author can take his revenge when the rEVOLution comes. WillOakland (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does not meet criteria "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." --WP:SOAP. show where the article is not reported objectively. Amoffat
Long passages of propaganda from the document pasted into the article = soapboxing. Compare to The Triple Revolution or Port Huron Statement, both of which have the advantage of being discussed in reliable secondary sources. WillOakland (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2008 (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.