Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Floor Group

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7th Floor Group

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

Delete because:

Narutolovehinata5 and Geogene put this article up for speedy deletion a week or so apart,[1][2] but those didn't work, hence this AFD. I haven't been able to find any reliable secondary sources in my own search. There are currently 3 sources cited, all of which are primary and none of which constitute "in-depth" coverage: 2 of them[3][4] reference the same FBI document on different websites and the 3rd one (CNBC)[5] is a breaking news article quoting an anonymous source taken directly from the same FBI document. According to WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources..." WP:RSBREAKING also advises that material from anonymous sources isn't reliable. Later that same day and the next day, several reputable sources published articles with fully attributed statements refuting the claim about a "shadow government".[6][7] Most reputable newpapers didn't acknowledge that anonymous quote at all.

I don't even think this is something that should be merged into another article since it can't be supported by a single reliable secondary source and it's refuted by other, more reliable sources.

Note: This article was created by user:Shadowxgov who has since been blocked indefinitely because they "abusively used multiple accounts" (see Sockpuppet investigation). The other primary editor of this article, Knowledgebattle, was found to be the master account (but for some reason the SPI is still under filed under Shadowxgov). —PermStrump(talk) 02:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —PermStrump(talk) 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —PermStrump(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the discussion at the Fringe theories noticeboard. —PermStrump(talk) 02:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the nominator's analysis is compelling; should follow the way of similar articles:

and be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. Even when this first came out, it wasn't covered in enough reliable sources and from the looks of things the story died out quickly (it wasn't even mentioned in Reddit subreddits, from what I recall). Nowhere to merge this to either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree the nominator's analysis is correct. This is poorly sourced nonsense. It's been two weeks since the breaking news story and no better sources have come forward? Sure sign there is nothing here. --Krelnik (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable neologism. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (WP:SNOW) - Agree with nominator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable conspiracy theory. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable secondary sources. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seventh Floor positions referenced in WikiLeak Secretary of State dump. (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.167.80 (talk) [reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of secondary sources is key. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Please. Nickm57 (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2016 (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.