Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Synthetic Terror

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, should wait until really notable to recreate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Synthetic Terror

One sentence article about a non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly 37 libraries in the United States [1] GabrielF 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria. The book isn't available at my local bookstore either, and Borders incidates that it's out of print. [2] --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a hate provoking article that quite clearly looks fake.--John 99 h 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - content-free and advertising. BTLizard 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Calling this a "a hate provoking article that quite clearly looks fake" is a bit of a stretch... What it is though is an article for a book that demonstrates no importance or notability and as it is out of print there is slim chance it will become important or notable in the future. For that reason it should be deleted with no predjudice against recreation if by some odd chance this book becomes notable in the future.--Isotope23 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above--Peephole 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)----
• Delete Wow...a book about conspiracy theories! Zippity-doodaa.--MONGO 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as yet another non notable 9/11 conspiracy book. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: appears to fall short of the notability criteria. -- The Anome 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd say merge into Webster G. Tarpley, but there is no real content here to merge. --Hyperbole 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any relevant material to Webster G. Tarpley.--Jersey Devil 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -AMK152 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments.UberCryxic 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 47 k google hits certanly fullfills Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria: "there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable."--Striver 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment perhaps more to the point is about 500 unique hits. Not that bad actually but certainly not 47K. Also please note that it is pretty much consensus that the note on notability that you cite is very much insufficient. See the working proposal WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Pseudotumor 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of the above arguments confuse me. This book is not published in the UK (as far as I know), yet amazon.co.uk not only import it (presumably from the US) but keep it in stock. I find it strange that Amazon would stock a book that is unpopular enough to be "non-notable". The article has only been in existence for three months and could do with someone who is in the know to expand it. Mallanox 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. No evidence that Amazon UK actually keeps it "in stock". Order time is 4-6 weeks, which doesn't sound like a book that's "in stock".

• Delete per nom.Bagginator 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Tbeatty 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' as per Mallanox--Pussy Galore 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recreation might be allowed if someone has something to say about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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.