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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a nonnotable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly ten libraries in the United States. [1] GabrielF 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Per nom. It also fails the "Threshold standards" section of WP:BK. Tarret 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. At best, perhaps if there was a mention of Christian conspiracy theories on the 9/11 Conspiracy page, it might warrant a mention there. Jcam 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. I do agree that it might be noteworthy on 9/11 Conspiracy --Wildnox 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Tarret --Mmx1 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not worthy of an article in an of itself.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable and content-free. BTLizard 08:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above--Peephole 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)----[reply]
• Delete per nom. Certainly non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mention of the book on the David Ray Griffin article suffices. No need for this spin-off article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no real content to merge with David Ray Griffin. --Hyperbole 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep in light of its publisher and unusually high Amazon rank. [2] #2,212 is really exceptionally high. Obviously, the article needs expansion, since it contains no content. --Hyperbole 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wow...another Striver-cruft article...how surprising.--MONGO 09:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fullfills Wikipedia:Notability (books), notable auothor, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,626, 29k google hits, notable publisher, reviewed in The Washington Times [3] and The Christian Post [4]. Fullills all criteria for inclusion. --Striver 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, controversy surrounding the book was noted in those articles, the were not book reviews. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A controversy is better than a review. --Striver 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Aude. Morton devonshire 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft which has failed to achive Notablity Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. 1ne 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into David Ray Griffin and Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. (Note: I just expanded the article a little to mention how controversial the book is amongst Presbyterians, but I still say it should be deleted.) CWC(talk) 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now merged everything useful into the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation in anticipation of a "Delete" decision. CWC(talk) 16:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Tbeatty 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fulfills criteria for entry--Pussy Galore 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tarret and per nom. These cruft articles have an AfD sock pattern of those who want to "keep". JungleCat talk/contrib 15:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The same could be said of those voting for 'delete', who appear with some regularity on pages relating to what are, rather incivily, termed 'cruft' articles.--Pussy Galore 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pussy Galore you seem somewhat offended by this. You have an interesting edit history. Also, other users are questioning who you are. Care to fill us in? JungleCat talk/contrib 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. I've listed myself at checkuser. What exactly is interesting about my contributions? What are you implying? --Pussy Galore 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what kind of articles will you be working on or new pages would you like to submit? When I first signed up here at Wiki, it took me a while to find the AfD’s, etc. AfD “voting” is the bulk of your edits. Not that there is anything wrong with that officially. I am not the only one who has noticed this. If I were contributing nothing but AfD “votes”, some might suspect that I was a sock. But that is my thought on the matter. Cheers. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hopefully, you would then ask those users to show a little more Good Faith. --Pussy Galore 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : Result from checkuser, "No malicous activity by this account"--Pussy Galore 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My scribbles are in more libraries than that, and no one claims I'm notable as an author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're gaming Amazon.com sales rank, by selling copies of the book among themselves. Withdrawing vote, though, as that sales rank is now less than 2000. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 11 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.