Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Franklin Coverup

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. NawlinWiki 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Franklin Coverup

One paragraph article about a non-notable conspiracy theory book. Something about satanist child-abusing politicians in Nebraska. The book gets 13,000 google hits, of which about 260 are unique. [1], Amazon rank is about 31,500, worldcat has it in 127 libraries out of 10,000. Google scholar has nine citations, none of them seem significant. [2] I can't find any mainstream reviews or press coverage that would speak to notability. GabrielF 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge, no reason this has to have an article separate from the Franklin Coverup Scandal.--Rosicrucian 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• merge likely search term Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete someone's personal crusade. NN. Tbeatty 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and controversial book which will definitely be expanded if given time. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Silence for another AFD that failed in a very similar and notable controversial film, banned by special interest groups. Joe1141 01:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
• Merge Don't see any reason for separate article at the moment Bwithh 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Franklin Coverup Scandal. It's not a particularly notable book, but it appears to have some signficance in the whole Franklin/King/satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory. The Conspiracy of Silence, Lawrence King, and Paul A. Bonacci articles should be merged in there as well. --MCB 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Straight Delete as the work fails WP:BK. The Franklin Credit Union and Senator John DeCamp's sexual abuse allegations are just not notable today. Why is a throughly discredited set of allegations and the persons involved suddenly the "hot topic" in blogdom and notable-enough to warrant 6 separate articles? It's not. Nobody in the mainstream press is still talking about this issue. That makes the subject non-notable in an encyclopedia that requires reference to reliable secondary sources, not blogs. Where are the references to this book in reputable sources? This story is dead, dead, dead, and has been since 1989. Morton devonshire 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and redirect to Franklin Coverup Scandal Brimba 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see no basis for deletion at all. Note that WP:BK is not a guideline; it's a proposal that does not have consensus. Derex 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton Devonshire and the fact that Wikipedia is not Barnes and Nobles, we do not need summaries of every book, hence it failing WP:BK. Author isnt notable, and the book didnt win any prestigious awards or break records or sell particularly well. --NuclearZer0 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable book. --SunStar Net 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For non-notability , the fact that the whole mess is covered in other articles, and that, frankly, as Tbetty said, it reads like someone's personal crusade -- --and we ain't no soapbox. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable book, per Morton. Wearing my anti-Satanic ritual heavy-gauge tinfoil turkey roaster hat. Edison 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect a likely search term, all relevant info already included in Franklin Coverup Scandal -- Martinp23 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, fails WP:BK. - Crockspot 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, see WP:BK#Criteria, the book is notable in its own right and satisfies at least a few of these criteria, having been reviewed by multiple noteworthy sources and being developed into a motion picture documentary that was then banned by special interest groups. Joe1141 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

  The documentary Joe is referring to is Conspiracy of Silence, which was never aired on TV or released on video. It does not fulfill criterion 2 of WP:BK, which states "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres." If you have noteworthy reviews, by all means provide links. GabrielF 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Also, it is not at all clear that the documentary is "adapted with attribution" from the book, or merely covers the same set of alleged events. --MCB 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Franklin Coverup Scandal. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable book. Redirect as logical search term. JChap2007 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AfD details. Drahcir^{my talk} 02:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable book, don't see any reason for it to have an article here. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Fails all points of WP:BK. The worst part is that the book is written using an "alleged child sexual abuse ring organized for members of the political and financial elites of the United States". There are real people and families out there who are affected by this sort of stuff (believe it or not). JungleCat talk/contrib 02:58, 3 November 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.