Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands


 * 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. -Docg 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. #39,476 "best seller" on Amazon...so until we write articles on the 39,475 that are better sellers, the only reason this article seems to exist is to promote conspiracy theory misinformation. Say NO to spam. MONGO 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or vastly rewrite - I'm biased against misinformation, biased against idiocy, and biased against articles on alleged "non-fiction" books by idiots full of misinformation. I will say, though, that #39,476 might well be the top 50% - there's a lot of stuff on Amazon. If the article stays, the belligerent summary of Dr. Schmuck's thesis needs to be completely overhauled. --Action Jackson IV 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Clarification: Are you stating the articles are full of misinformation, the books are full of misinformation, the idiots are full of misinformation, or all of the above? Inkpaduta 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:COI, WP:NN, and per-nom --Selket Talk 08:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable third-party sources found to establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am basing this solely on the content of the article, nothing to do with existence of any conspiracy theories or not.  The article cites pretty much only the creators of this video as its references.  Since this is like my citing my own blog to show that I am notable I cannot see that this is valid.  Find and add correct sources to the article and I will change my recommendation.  Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete per above GabrielF 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - without reliable secondary sources who have written about the video, this can only be original research promoting (or denigrating) the work, or a soapbox to advance more 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fiddle Faddle --rogerd 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanispamadvercruftment Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not sure where the non-notable aspect is coming from. I see non-trivial third-party coverage here.  . V .  [Talk 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jim Hoffman, which is where this information most properly attaches. --Hyperbole 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons cited at last AFD - Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt which resulted in unanimous delete. Why was this article recreated, despite overwhelming consensus that the video is not notable?  This video is still not notable. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Seems to have only one marginally reliable reference, which is to a college newspaper. Inkpaduta 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt, per nom, and all of the reasons I cited last time I voted delete for this article.   MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and salt as recrated content. Resolute 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete recreated content; see Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt. Tom Harrison Talk 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aude. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It was fun while it lasted! Ha ha . . . bov 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The above vote is from the creator of the article. JuJube 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment from article creator above suggests hoax. JuJube 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt, nothing seems to have changed. Wikipedia isn't for selling videos or increasing hit counts. --Dual Freq 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears promotional. Lacks WP:RS (The student newspaper at UC-Denver doesn't really meet WP:RS, IMHO). -- MarcoTolo 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets wikiedia requirements. Simply explaining what a video is does not violate WP:SOAP. Notable enough. Travb (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2007 (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.