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 no consensus. For lack of participation.  Sandstein  15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: World Trade Center Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not indicate notability; the article contains only the briefest description of the book Lopifalko (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed, see comment below) Was:"Merge and redirect to a list-article on broader topic." The nominator is correct that there is little here. However, I notice the book article is in Category:Books about the September 11 attacks along with 38 others (non-fiction and novels, both). And a quick search suggests that the topic of books about September 11 attacks is itself notable. E.g.

• The 20 best 9/11 books, Sep 2, 2011, news article(?) at The Guardian -" On the eve of the terrorist attacks' 10th anniversary, the BBC Today ..."
• 9-11 Research: Books: the World Trade Center Attack, at 911research.wtc7.net/resources/books/, with "While numerous books questioning the official story of the 9/11/01 attack have been published, few have examined the forensics of the core of the attack -- the ..."
• Five must-read books about 9/11 and its legacy, at www.today.com, Today, Sep 8, 2011, with "In the decade since the attacks of Sept. 11, many writers have attempted to recount, deconstruct and understand the experience. Here are five ..."
• Book:September 11 attacks, a Wikipedia book.

Certainly a list-article on such books is a valid topic, and this one book article can better be merged/redirected to that, unless and until there is reason to have a separate article about this book. Say List of books about the September 11 attacks (currently a red-link). Due to an editing restriction, i can't start the list-article in mainspace, but have started Draft:List of books about the September 11 attacks and will submit that via Articles For Creation process. It's a better resolution, less negative to the contributor(s).

--doncram 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am open to the list-article becoming just a section in a bigger article about historiography of September 11 attacks, including news coverage, etc., and I will link to any such articles if I find them. But so far I just find a list-article on Cultural references to the September 11 attacks, which is much broader. I think there's need for more focused list-article like i have started. Note per wp:CLT, it complements the corresponding category; the size of the category suggests need for a good list-article providing some perspective. I expect to build a table with publication dates and more. --doncram 17:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Update The List of books about the September 11 attacks article has been created in mainspace, and now serves as a suitable merge-and-redirect target, until and unless more coverage about this book itself makes it more clearly notable on its own. If this AFD is closed that way, I would be happy to merge the entire short contents of the current Aftermath: World Trade Center Archive article to there. Each book in the list there should get a one or two or three sentence description like that. Thanks. --doncram 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I changed my Vote from Merge to Keep above. There are plenty of hits on the book, e.g. Time magazine calling the original work "seminal" in their intro to a set of follow-up photos. The deletion nomination just says the current article is not supported with sources, it does not indicate wp:BEFORE has been performed, and it appears to me by quick searching that numerous sources are available. Nonetheless i am glad to have started the related list-article. --doncram 01:43, 13 January 2015 (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.