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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror Timeline[edit]

Non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. Little content. Peephole 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should be speedy criteria under nonsense--IworkforNASA 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Published by a subsidiary of HarperCollins, has an Amazon sales rank of 22,247 [1], 38,200 Google hits [2]. In my opinion, easily clears the notability bar. --Hyperbole 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the proximity of the nomination to 9/11 might cause an unusual spike in the books sales rank. The book is only in 190 libraries [3] (note that there is another edition in one library). Doesn't seem to support a claim of notability. GabrielF 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Hyperbole. wikipediatrix 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article needs significant cleaning - but does meet notability per Hyperbole, as noted. ZZ 06:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Striver-cruft and his POV pushing.--MONGO 09:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obvious keep. --Striver 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no assertion of notability. Publisher is no indication of notability. --Mmx1 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Pseudotumor 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 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. IS there an article on Strivercruft? --Tbeatty 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mmx1. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most certainly notable due to wide publication, and of interest to our users. Please do not attempt to censor this information! Badagnani 03:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon's rank is now #2,750 in Books. Also, a documentary film has just been made using the book as its source: 9/11: Press for Truth. It will be embarrassing if people come to Wikipedia looking for information about the source of the film, and no article exists due to the efforts of certain editors here. Badagnani 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep obviously noteable.--Pussy Galore 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sockpuppet.

^^^This comment was added by Arthur Rubin. I got so fed up with Arthurs persistent incivility, I actually requested a checkuser be done on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". As yet, I'm still awaiting an apology.--Pussy Galore 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment no apology will be given. User Pussy Galore was blocked indef. While I am here, Delete per nom. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, except to note that google search is particularly bad for this title, as it should pick up a number of different pages about terrorism. The Amazon.com rank is disturbingly high, suggesting the 9/11 disinformation Truth Squad has developed a way of spoofing the rank. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a conspiracy theory in itself?? Couldn't the more logical explanation be that there are simply a lot of conspiracy cranks out there with money to burn, who do indeed buy such books? wikipediatrix 23:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom GabrielF 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There have been convincing reasons put forward about the book's current sales and use as the basis for a documentary, as well as the interest for this material for many readers of wikipedia. Any personal comments in this AfD about other users are a poor basis for argument and do not accord with CIVILITY. Such !votes should be discounted. A personal opinion as to the believability or otherwise of the subject is also an irrelevance from the requirement of NPOV. Tyrenius 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-selling book, notable, mentioned by commentators on FoxNews/CNN/MSNBC and network news, reviewed in far too many leading newspapers and other periodicals to be considered not-notable. —ExplorerCDT 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I hate 9/11 "truth"cruft as much as the next man, but this book is undoubtedly notable in and of itself; its sales rankings prove that. In a year, if it has an Amazon ranking of like 100,000,000 then we can delete it. Batmanand | Talk 10:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hyperbole --Guinnog 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand why anyone would want to censor this information. KEEP it, 67.190.61.6 12:08, 12 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.