Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CIA and September 11 (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep.--Adam (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The CIA and September 11 (book)

The book has only been published in German, and not in English. I think it needs to be translated and published in English, with the English-language version widely circulated before it meets notability criteria for an article. Another critical issue is Verifiability and reliable sources to really know and verify what the book says. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment. I want to point out here that even dewiki does not have an article about this book; just an article on the author - de:Andreas von Bülow. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see hope for salvaging this article and reconciling the issues with notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the time being. Book should at least be available in English before inclusion. Thatcher131 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Change vote to Keep. The article is vastly improved from the original, which was less than stub quality. It now addresses my primary concern, which was notability. Honestly, I would not have imagined that anyone could have taken such a weak starting point and develop the article to its current state. Good work by the editor. Ande B 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) for English language article. Could be mentioned in article about the author Andreas von Bülow. Ande B 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Or Merge with related article(s), as I urged on the discussion page when the article was first posted. Ande B 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I realy wish I hadn't listed the "not English" language issue in my comment eariler. I see that it has caused some consternation and was not my primary motivation. The book is simply not notable. It has not had a visible social or political effect that warrants separate attention. It is a valid part of the Von Bülow article or any number of conpiracy articles. I read plenty of books and watch plenty of movies that are in languages other than English, and would have no problem with many of them getting their own articles. But this looks more tabloid, yellow press quality to me. (Sorry, I forgot to sign this before Ande B 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment best seller in a major market. Eivindt@c 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MONGO 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge because, quite honestly, we only need one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories and this is just a stub for a book that makes the same claim. Why we even have to discuss a book that claims that the damage to the Pentagon was faked by the military is beyond me, but apparently any crazy idea can get in wikipedia as long as there is enough muddying of the waters to close an AfD with "no consensus". Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't Amazon.de. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merge (see below) Relevant content will be referenced under the author; this does not warrant its own entry. Eusebeus 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep. A extremely notable book by an author with an apparently extensive political background. Language or cultural disparity is never a good reason for to delete an article if it has attained sufficient notability, there is a far-reaching precedent that individual books by notable authors get their own articles, and it's ridiculous to think no-one would want to see info on this. Besides, I would consider this to be more than just a stub now. Grandmasterka 09:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Frage: auf welchem Grund, behaupten Sie eine solche Bedeutung? Eusebeus 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If kept, it should be renamed The CIA and September 11. Since there are no other articles with the same name, the "book" disambiguation is unnecessary. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The title is sufficiently confusing that (book) is necessary. Otherwise you get the misimpression that the article is about ties between the CIA and 9-11, not just a book that purports that link. --Mmx1 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to its author's page. I don't believe a book or movie must be in English for it to be covered on WP, though the article must of course be in English. dw-world.de covered it (in English) as a bestseller, if you follow the link from the article. Esquizombi 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not notable to the english-speaking world because....guess what? we can't read it. Recreate when a translation is available. --Mmx1 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been much improved. --Mmx1 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability exclusively to the english speaking world isn't a criteria for inclusion in WP AFAIK. I don't know that there is a policy on excluding topics that are notable to foreign-language audiences. There are a lot of subjects that are important (even if this particular book is deemed not to be) that have not been translated into English. I don't know if there is a policy explicitly stating that untranslated books or films, etc. can be included (the absence of a policy that they cannot implies than can IMO) but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English comes close I think. Esquizombi 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: And also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations which is "a naming conventions guideline for the naming of wikipedia articles about books" which states "books that haven't been published in English (yet) are preferably referred to by an English version of the title" which would also appear to indicate articles about books that haven't been translated into English are acceptable. Esquizombi 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English mentions a translation should be done independently and sourced, rather than translation by a Wikipedian, so that the article is verifiable. Given this is a highly controversial topic, I'm loathe to take what the article here says about "Contents" of the book, without proper references and preferably an english translation of the book that I can look at. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:BIAS is somewhat relevant here. And it is verifiable, because any of the numerous German speakers on this wikipedia can verify it (such as Señor Eusebeus, who responded to me.) Grandmasterka 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Actually, the RS does NOT say that Wikipedians cannot do translations. It indicates they may be "performed by a Wikipedia editor" and that it is OK for "editors [to] use their own English translation." Certainly it is generally better (as stated there) to use outside translations (though sometimes a wikipedian may be able to provide a better translation than the ones available elsewhere). This isn't so much an issue with this article, which does cite to english language sources and external links. Esquizombi 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment. I would like "the opportunity to verify for myself what the original material actually said". But, I can't do that here. Given the book is so popular in Germany, it's likely in due time that there will be an English translated version of the book. At that time, I wouldn't object to an article here. Until then, I have problems with being able to verify the article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment It seems to me you're cherry-picking that guideline which states "In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said" (emphasis added). And again, that's not an issue anyway because there isn't any translation of the contents of the book in the article, rather it appears it was composed by reference to english language articles about the book which given that WP is a tertiary source is acceptable. If there were translated text from the book you could order the book and a German/English dictionary or plop passages into Babelfish and get an idea as to whether the translation may be accurate or not. But again, there's not, so that's not an issue. Would there be a good place on WP to discuss the broader issue of articles about untranslated subjects?Esquizombi 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not giving any credence to its notability when it's not on de.wikipedia.org [1]. The best it gets is a line in Andreas von Bülow [2] -- Samir (the scope) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Using the deWP to argue a topic is not notable is weak, IMO. There are plenty of English-language books, films etc. that meet WP's notability criteria and are not on the enWP yet, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. Esquizombi 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Not weak, in my opinion. A claimed #3 best seller in English is probably on the English wikipedia. I haven't been swung over by claims of sales which are unreferenced. Provide a better reference of its claim to notability than german.about.com. Until then, I take the absence on the German wikipedia to be telling -- Samir (the scope) 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I repeat, I don't think the absence of an article on the deWP proves it is not notable, any more than the absence of an article about an English language book on this WP proves the book is not notable. It only proves nobody has added one yet. There's no article on Barbara Hodgson, for example, or any of her several critically acclaimed and award-winning books, one of which is being adapted into a film (I should work on that). Additionally, the dewiki only has "378.316 Artikel" versus the 1,054,498 articles on this one. Look at the article again; there are better references there than the about.com one you singled out. There are other references to it as a bestseller, for example The Boston Globe.[3] Esquizombi 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Put the references in the article. I wasn't aware of the Boston Globe reference, and have to use circumstantial evidence like absence in the German wikipedia, which I think still counts for something (i.e. an article on Barbara Hodgson would be more likely to appear in en.wikipedia than de.wikipedia) -- Samir (the scope) 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems to be important in the German-speaking world. en.wikipedia, while based and written in English, is not an encyclopaedia for exclusively English topics. Lord Bob 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above - our ignorance of other languages does not mean we should delete articles about material written in them. For great justice. 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grandmasterka et al., notable book by notable autho, notability is not exclusive to the Anglosphere. There are more than enough really crufty 9/11 POV stubs around, let's have at these. Sandstein 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn in .de (and yes I speak german....) Bridesmill 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (stricken, per Bridesmill's request below. -- noosphere 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment What does "nn in .de" mean? If you're referring to the fact that there is no article on the de.wp, that only means that nobody there has been motivated enough to add an article for it, not that it would not meet their notability criteria. If you're referring to Amazon.de, it appears to be ranked 3,029 there[4] which isn't too bad for a three year old book. Esquizombi 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - please delete my previous Delete - article very much improved, as it is right now it stands as a fine example of critical book review. Still not a particularly notable book here; are we going to do article of every book that has any level of notability anywhere in the world? Bridesmill 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability isn't exclusive to the so-called "Anglosphere;" I quite agree. Its inclusion into Wikipedia.de should take place forthwith, and I encourage those who approve of it so highly to take care of that. RGTraynor 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Your seemingly snarky remark is unappreciated WP:NPA. I don't approve of the book, but I do approve of an article about it, because it appears to meet criteria for notability and does meet WP:V. The sources for the article are english language articles by Deutsche Welle's DW-World.de, Newsweek, and the twelve-year old online newspaper telegraph.co.uk which strike me as reliable and also speaking to the book's notability. Esquizombi 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • While I don't think that was a personal attack by any stretch, I should observe that, while I would be happy to add it myself, I don't speak a word of German. Lord Bob 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "those who approve of it so highly" is what I objected to. I'm quite willing to vote keep on topics I don't approve of (like this one) if I believe they merit inclusion. The article's content is verifiable with reliable sources and the book appears to be notable. Ich spreche nur ein bißchen Deutsch, so I'm not sure I'd be qualified to add the article to the German wiki, though I had created an account there and have managed to order German-language books and movies from Amazon.de. Esquizombi 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WEAK WEAK WEAK Keep This article is about the BOOK not the CONTENT, if it is a popular book and a best seller in a major market as somsone stated then it should be included. Remember the references have to be in english or translated to english, but the book does not. We are not argueing the content of the book, but rather its notability. Mike (T C) 19:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it's number three in Germany with sales of 100,000 (though I'd like to see evidence of that), then it's definitely notable. Not being translated into English is not a criterion for deletion. We have lots of articles about non-English television shows and movies. I mean, what about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for Goo's sake? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has been translated, though. But there are other films on WP that haven't been. Esquizombi 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It's been translated for tv viewing, but it was subtitled when shown in theaters. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, decent sources and appears notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ich verstehe nicht: it is not clear to me, nor have I seen addressed in this discussion, why this content is not better considered at the entry on Andreas von Bülow; it is hardly as if that article is so overwhelmingly long that it cannot accommodate more information, and since the book is the vehicle for the ideas of the man, surely it is a better place for it. Why keep this in a separate article? The fact that it is in German, is really a canard. If this is kept this time around, I recommend it be renominated with a suggested merge to the author to avoid an unecessary debate about language. Eusebeus 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Postcscript: WRT several points made above, this is very unlikely to receive an article on de.WP, since their standards for inclusion are generally much more stringent and, per precedent, any such article would almost certainly be flagged for deletion forthwith and the content moved back to Bulow's main German language entry. So inter-wiki referencing here wrt notability is not apposite. Eusebeus 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment In the case of people who wrote only one book, and especially if they are primarily known only for that book, I would agree with you. In this case, since he is the author of at least two books and is known (or at least had long been known) for being in the German government, I'd be less inclined to advocate merging. As it is, it's unfortunate so much of Bulow's own entry is about his 9/11 beliefs. I haven't tried to read the de.wiki's deletion policies, but they do have an article there on the apparently untranslated English language 9/11 conspiracy book de:Crossing the Rubicon, so I'm not sure Bulow's book would be deleted. Esquizombi 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep book seems notable per all above to me Jcuk 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. --Striver 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sure looks notable to me. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. the book has gotten attention somewhere in the world so we should be talking about it here. That's what we do. Is the nom suggesting that the whole world should speak English and if they don't we should ignore it? Frankly, I think that kind of thinking is dangerous for the spread of knowledge. Language was not a barrier to the exchange of ideas in the 18th century and I don't see why it should be in the 21st century. -- JJay 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable despite the language. feydey 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge'. The article is well organized, and the organization takes up as much room as the content. It's a stub, notable or not. I'm not even sure the book is original. If it ever gets translated, it can be deconsolidated from related articles back into its own.--Pro-Lick 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when does something have to be in English to be notable? As for verifiability, there are plenty of German speaking Wikipedia editors who can do that. -- noosphere 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment As far as I am concerned, translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence. The more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest. Without wide distribution then I would look to social or political consequences of the book and I just don't see much in the way of consequences for this particular book, regardless of its origins. YMMV. Ande B 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the first two sentences of the above comment. Namely, that "translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence" and "the more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest." However, it does not follow that just because a book may not have been translated in to English, then the only criteria we can use to judge its notability is its "political consequences". It's not at all clear how one could judge the "political consequences" of a book in a NPOV way. It may be relatively clear in the case of some exceptions like Mao's Little Red Book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and the scriptures of the major religions; but in the vast majority of cases books just don't have any obviously visible political consequences. However, that doesn't mean they're non-notable. I think looking at the sales numbers of the book in question as a sign of its notability is perfectly acceptable, even when there's no English translation. By excluding popular books that haven't yet been translated in to English we're encouraging systemic bias and hampering legitimate research in to a given topic by English speaking individuals who may be interested in how that topic is percieved or interpreted in the rest of the non-English speaking world. Besides, the English language publishing industry is generally not interested in books in translation: only a miserably tiny fraction of foreign language books are ever translated in to English[5][6], likely for business reasons that may have little to do with their notability in the rest of the world. Why should Wikipedia defer to the English language publishing industry to the exclusion of the rest of the world, when we can rely on perfectly legitimate indicators of their notability elsewhere (such as their sales in other countries)? -- noosphere 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this article has come a long way since being nominated for AfD. There are three claims being made about: firstly it is NN. I disagree: it has sold 100,000 copies, which is very large for a "non-fiction" (allegedly!) book, especially in Germany. It was the hot topic of the 2003 Frankfurt Book Fair - and as a book, not just as the work of Herr "Cranky" van Bulow". It is extremely controversial as a book (not just as a selection of views) because of the quality of sourcing - this is an issue about the German publishing industry, not 9/11, therefore we need to consider this book as a book, not just a selection of (what are largely seen as dangerous/bizarre) views associated with one man. Secondly, it not verifiable. I disagree, there are plenty of English languages secondary sources on this book and I have tried to improve the referencing for the article so that it is now clear exactly where each statement in the article can be sourced from. (Haven't finished just yet, will probably take me another hour to incorporate another three English language sources). Thirdly, it is synonymous with Andreas von Bulow and should be merged. Again, I disagree, we need to treat this book as a book for the reasons I have given already plus the fact that Andreas von Bulow has had a long career and is important as a politician in his own right. If we had a balanced biography for him, perhaps the bottom quarter of it would be on his post-politicial retirement conspiracy theorising. However, that is unlikely to happen as in the English-speaking world he is best known for his controversial views on 9/11. Those views do not "define the man" and this article is about more than his views, it also considers the books as a publishing phenomenon, as part of a zeitgeist for similar publications, and as a controversy within German publishing. TheGrappler 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am certainly coming to this late in the day, but this seems to be one of those cases where the nomination for AFD resulting in a much better article. Multiple bases of notability are now laid out with references. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to FA. - Darwinek 11:02, 7 April 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_The_CIA_and_September_11_%28book%29_edd5.html"