Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/House of Bush, House of Saud

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 of the debate was - no consensus

[edit] House of Bush, House of Saud

Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a vote (yet, anyway): just a question. The book is notable and deserves an article, should anyone decide to write one. But does the movie exist? (Do plans for it even exist?) -- Hoary 11:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've a feeling the movie may be Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the selling of American Empire which seems to feature the exact same people. This article should really be about the book. Perhaps send to peer review? Dbiv 12:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep—notable. Cleanup. Everyking 15:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and get new article. I agree with Dbiv: the current article is about the Frontline documentary (same folks) or the one she mentions. The documentaries are not notable enough for anyone to want to move this article (which would then create a redirect from this title). There is no "keep" to this, though, except for the name, and the name is not editor labor to be saved. Geogre 16:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• As the talk page mentions, the text is taken directly from houseofbush.com. Aside from that, delete and get new article seems reasonable. Kappa 16:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and get new article. The book is notable. And worthy of analysis. But this is not the start of an article about the book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and start new article. The book is noteworthy, but this has nothing to do with the book. --L. Pistachio 23:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, propagandist junk. -- Old Right 23:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Notable book, so if a non-copyvio article is written, it should be kept. -Sean Curtin 01:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Terminal PoV. I'm shocked... shocked to hear that a certain well-known politician may have potential conflicts of interest. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 23:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, far too PoV to keep, stinks of anti-Bush propaganda. --Librarian Brent 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite // Liftarn 20:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I'd keep it.
• Delete, but start new article on the notable book of that title at the same time. -- Key45 23:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 01:35, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs substantial editing. --Edeans 02:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 06:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as an article primarily about the book (ISBN 074325337X), which is notable. Rewrite to make it NPOV. --MarkSweep 22:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I know, the book was pretty well researched, so if correctly written, wouldn't count as POV. Maybe merge with 'Dude where's my country' though... ;) --PoleyDee 23:20, 9 Dec 2004 (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.