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 merge to Debunking 9/11 Myths. Petros471 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11: Debunking The Myths[edit]

WP:NOT a random collection of information. This article could be referenced at any of the 100 or so conspiracy articles we currently have. We don't need an encyclopedia article for every Popular Mechanics article.

• Delete as nominator --Tbeatty 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmmm. There is a very short article, Debunking 9/11 Myths, about the book based on the article. The book may or may not be notable; the article certainly is not, I would think. How all this could best be sorted out, I don't know. The best solution would normally be to Merge this article into Debunking 9/11 Myths (actually easier to merge that article into this one and rename this article to Debunking 9/11 Myths). I don't know, however, what parts of this article apply only to the article and not to the book. It's likely that the book is a superset of the article. Therefore most of the material would apply. The author might, however, have (for instance) addressed in the book some of the criticisms in the article, and so forth. And there's no way to tell what parts of this article apply to Debunking 9/11 Myths. Unless someone is willing and able to sort this all out, I guess I would have to say that this article should just be deleted. Herostratus 19:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's fairly likely that the article is more notable than the book. I know that I heard of and saw the former well before the latter. NatusRoma | Talk 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually notable and sourced my various parties. Article was well-publicized. Nickieee 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the article AND the book need separate encyclopedia articles?--Tbeatty 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Debunking 9/11 Myths. The article was created by User:Striver, perhaps to make a point. He also created Debunking 9/11 Myths for the book. Another of his article creations, The Big Wedding is up for deletion. The question here is where do we draw the line for notability of books, articles, and websites? This article comes up ranked #24 in Google results when searching "9/11", out of 289,000,000 results. Debunking 9/11 Myths is currently ranked #850 in Amazon.com sales, and is easily found in any local bookstore. I was just at Barnes & Noble, and they had numerous copies of Debunking 9/11 Myths, as well as two copies of The New Pearl Harbor and one copy of Crossing the Rubicon. But no copies of The Big Wedding, which is ranked #252,792 in Amazon sales. In the scheme of things, the book definitely is notable. The Popular Mechanics book builds on the success and popularity of the article, and as such, the Popular Mechanics article can and should be discussed in the book article. However, I think that an article on an article is too much, and it would suffice to merge with the Debunking 9/11 Myths article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the book version of this is up for deletion. --Tbeatty 03:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not. Nonetheless, I have to wonder if Striver created both these articles to make a point? I like to assume good faith, but he's created so many stubs for individual videos, books, websites by Alex Jones, et al. We need a consistent application of Wikipedia policies, regardless of which viewpoint a particular book (or whatever) takes. If the Debunking 9/11 Myths book wasn't so widely available, with relatively high sales rank, I would put the book article up for deletion, and vote delete here. But, given the book's notability, I suggest merging this article into that one. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article in a magazine is not notable. Merge with an existing article related to 9/11. Given the complete lack of information in the article, and comments above, I would suspect violations of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. Resolute 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a point? NPOV? A point about what? I dont get it, i do bad when i creat something from the 911TM and i do bad when i creat something against 911TM.... the references of the article shoul prove notability, if a Department of the United States prominently refering to this single article is not enough to prove notablility, then nothing is. But i know the game, ther is a bunch that just look if i created it or not before voting delete, so ill dig upp some mainstream newspapers as well. --Striver 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Debunking The Myths" popular mechanics gives 34k Ghits. --Striver 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith, and that you were just trying to help by creating the stubs. The disagreement (over this article, and many other stub creations) lies with what's notable, and needs a separate stub article. I think we would do better to combine the two shorter, stub articles (which overlap significantly in topic) into one, larger better-quality article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your resoning, but i do not agree with your conclusion. The article has been around for over a year and has been PROMINENTLY refered to by multiple sources. That makes it notable in itself. Now, a book is on its way, and this article will not become less notable due to a book comming. And the book itself is also notable enough to have its own article. So i argue that both articles can stand on its own and should do so. --Striver 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nickieee and Striver. Anomo 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a new (better) name. Merge. RJFJR 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, tell that to the guys naming the original article, we cant make up names. Were do you want to merge this anyway? --Striver 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, merge to Debunking 9/11 Myths. If we rename the history is at the new name, right? Then we can delete the old name that is only a redirect. Or does the history stay with the old name? Anyways, I believe a motion to rename the article is in order during an AFD. RJFJR 14:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, now i understand. The article is far more notable that the book is. Right now, anyway. --Striver 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with Debunking 9/11 Myths. Not notable by itself. Morton devonshire 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user does not regard San Francisco Chronicle, Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, The Chicago Tribune, BBC and The Courier-Mail as enough to establish notability? Strange... --Striver 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As much as I hate the idea of an article about an article, I find the keep arguments more compelling based on the sheer notoriety of the subject and on Wikipedia not being paper.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Debunking 9/11 Myths. Combining the book and the article that inspired it is simply a better way to organize this information; it saves the reader a click or two. --Hyperbole 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hyperbole. Two articles have significant overlap. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Debunking 9/11 Myths: Striver is well known to try and push POV. I love how he only writes about the criticism as opposed to the MAIN CONCEPTS IN THE ARTICLE!!!! Pseudotumor 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he's sure to post every possible site of internet "coverage" so he can argue for notability. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Debunking 9/11 Myths. I can't see why we would have two pages about what are basically just two versions of the same thing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn GabrielF 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this POV fork into the other POV fork...namely Debunking 9/11 Myths article.--MONGO 13:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Peephole 13:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Debunking 9/11 Myths. wikipediatrix 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikipediatrix. --Mmx1 15:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I don't care which way, but the book and the article should not have separate articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A magazine article would have to be pretty darned spectacular to be notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Mallanox 04:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Arthur Rubin. CWC(talk) 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, but whichever, DO NOT LOSE THIS PAGE'S INFORMATION!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetfreek (talk • contribs) .
• Merge into Debunking 9/11 myths. My Alt Account 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the views of nickieee--Pussy Galore 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned user for trolling Merge/Delete per nom HawkerTyphoon 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per MONGO. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sexbeatle (talk • contribs) 14:26, September 12, 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article made news and there is enough content to warrant its own article. As Striver noted:"Debunking The Myths" popular mechanics gives 34k Ghits. Arbusto 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge content with the book article.--Rosicrucian 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per nom. I'm in consensus with anything but "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. JoshuaZ 23:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Also it needs massive NPOVing. JoshuaZ 19:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge no need to have an article on the book and on the article about the book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as one of the single biggest WP:NPOV violations I've ever seen in the history of Wikipedia. An entire article attacking a magazine story? Are you kidding me? --Aaron 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.