Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Earth

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Earth

Delete: Obscure WP:FRINGE magazine. Magazine title is sufficiently generic that it generates large numbers of unrelated search hits, but no immediately-apparent RSes. Parent organisation is 'Northern Earth Mysteries Group', which search-results in a small number of books (roughly 50/50 books published by the group and bare citations) and no news hits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator seems to have the right of it. No prejudice to recreation if they do attract non-trivial treatment from independent reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources present. --Peephole (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there nothing in this search of use? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: nothing reliable, and certainly nothing reliable and third-party that provides significant coverage (either individually or collectively).
Yeah, after I'm not getting a lot. I suspect if the article was reworked extensively so as to focus on the Northern Earth Mysteries group as an organisation and publisher it might fare better, however even there I'm having trouble coming up with decent links from unambiguously fringey sources - we can verify they exist[1] and that they publish things[2][3] but it's not really enough to establish notablity. Irritatingly theres a news archive site that has what looks to be some good refs[4] but they are tantalisingly out of reach behind a paywall. Artw (talk) 05:10, 2 February 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.