Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debunking 9/11 Debunking

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 and redirect to author. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to David Ray Griffin - isn't featured in any reliable sources and conflict of interest problem. Addhoc 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete umm hmmm. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as an advertisement. Such books sometimes become notable later on; if that should happen, the article can always be recreated. Digwuren 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mkdw ^talk 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debunk. The "mainstream news sources" cited as having referred to this book are anything but - Ashland Daily Tidings has a circulation of around 3000 and is "one of Oregon's smallest-circulation dailies", for example. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how many levels of back and forth are encyclopedic? This is probably one too many. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, currently called 9/11 truth movement. We don't need an ad for a book, unless it's well-recognized (as with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, the first great JFK conspiracy book). Mandsford 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN book, should be covered only in David Ray Griffin article.
Note: The article says the book "has been referred to by mainstream news sources such as Le Monde Diplomatique, Ashland Daily Tidings, Common Ground". In fact, those links are (1) an essay by Griffin in Le Monde Diplomatique, (2) a (good) article about Griffin visiting Southern Oregon University that does not mention the book and (3) an article in a far-from-mainstream alternative-politics magazine. Strike Three! This article has to go. Cheers, CWC 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all of WP:BK: The book has not been the subject (1) of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience; (2) has not won a major literary award; (3) has not been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country; (4) is not the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any country; and (5) book's author is not so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. Fails all of these criteria. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tbeatty 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge into David Ray Griffin. --PEAR (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this qualify for WP:DAFT?--orlady 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no. The freaky title comes from the book, and the article only conveys the book's title. Digwuren 20:29, 5 August 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.