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. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk With Our Ancestors

[edit]

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

A self-published book (via CreateSpace). Author has only released self-published books. Unable to find any reliable refs. Article has been around since 2010, so I'm leery of doing a Prod. Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm very, very tempted to ask that this be deleted due to very, very blatant attacks in the article's history. You can see it at various places such as here. These aren't in the current version, but they're visible to anyone who would want to look back in the history- which is likely, given that many editors tend to look through the history to see if there were any prior usable RS in the article. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't speedied back then. There's also some rather blatant attempts to market the book in the past versions, but that I'm not as worried about. In any case, there aren't any reliable sources out there for this book and I think that speedying this due to the attacks in the article history would just be hastening the inevitable at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it with a speedy for the article's history, but I'm unsure if it will be deleted since the material was removed. I'm just a little afraid of leaving this up when it has attacks of that nature in the history, although I know that we've kept article histories like that in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I find it a little hilarious that someone did come in to edit the article and remove the hate speech and promotional-ish tones, yet it was reverted back to the prior version before the IP editor tried again and succeeded with the changes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think the attacks are that bad, delete the revisions that contain them. There is a valid BLP argument. Personally I find them run-of-the-mill in the context of folkish heathenry, and I have not found sources documenting notability, so I expect the article to be deleted anyway at the end of this AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Update: I went ahead and deleted the revisions containing attacks; the remainder of the history is still viewable. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2014 (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.