Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Terror Conspiracy

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Terror Conspiracy

Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy book. Fails WP:BK and WP:V. Peephole 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I hate stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories, but WP:V doesn't not apply to the contents (nor the book itself). Just try searching for it. The author seems to be a well known conspiracy theory writer, thus this book would pass WP:BK. Mitaphane _talk 03:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Amazon sales rank of 4,070 is quite high. [1]. Appears to satisfy WP:BK, since the author, Jim Marrs, meets Wikipedia's criterea for notability. --Hyperbole 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Verifiability may not be an issue, but notability certainly is. This book is in exactly 15 of the 10,000+ libraries included in worldcat. [2] GabrielF 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment The book is one month old, which may explain why it isn't in many libraries. It does seem to be selling well. --Hyperbole 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  In that case you would expect the book to generate some press coverage. However a google news search reveals only 3 hits, two are very brief mentions, one is a review in the Fort Collins Weekly. The most recent is dated 9/13. It seems like this book is attracting almost no mainstream media attention and is not likely to attract more in the future. GabrielF 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN 'vaniscruftisment'. --Tbeatty 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and fails WP:BK as it cannot be verified in any way/shape/form from independent sources. Hence the name conspiracy theory.--Neo 05:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I searched Terror Conspiracy + Marrs on Google, looked through the results (12 pages) to the end where I reached "repeat the search with the omitted results included". In all these, the only reliable source was brief mention in a San Francisco Chronicle article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. That's not enough notability or WP:RS to build an article upon. --Aude (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all attempts for non notable people to make a buck off of nonsense, and misusing Wikipedia as an advertising platform to do so is crummy. Do we go around now and turn wiki into some book review or summary effort for every single book that has ever been put in print...of course not.--MONGO 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO but merge content into Jim Marrs first. (Aside: book is published by "The Disinformation Company"!) I strongly doubt that we'll ever need separate articles for Jim Marrs and this book. CWC(talk) 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanispamcruftisement. If, in the future, it becomes notable, then it would deserve an article, but not today. - Crockspot 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't seem any different from any other 9/11 conspiracy theory, the vast majority of which somehow invoke the personal involvement of George W. Bush somehow. Add it to the list of 9/11 conspiracy theory books, but there is no reason to have its own article at this time. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn at this time. Re-evaluate at a later point if needed. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Jim Marrs Mujinga 18:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Keep after re-reading WP:BK as per Mitaphane and Hyperbole. Mujinga 19:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Violates WP:BK and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement -- I hate when people use Wikipedia to try to create notability. Morton devonshire 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. This "stuff" is from the same person who wrote a book on UFOs called Alien Agenda. And now 9/11 was a US gov't "cover-up" by Bush. What a surprise. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge to Jim Marrs - amazon sales isn't enough for notability; if this book is reviewed in reputable sources after it has been out a while it might gain notability.--csloat 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not assert notability. --Aaron 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability at all within the article. Could have easily been speedied on that alone.--Rosicrucian 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How is it notable? Arbusto 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim to notability, no sources provided claiming its notable or anything. At best merge to the author, but the book itself doesnt seem to claim any notability. --NuclearZer0 12:48, 13 October 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.