Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Terrible Mistake


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A Terrible Mistake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Published through Trine Day, which describes itself as a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key “defect”: a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate “culture”, has not attracted any significant notice that I can see, and the article we have is frankly promotional. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * delete not notable outside of its conspiracy theory bubble. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable per WP:NBOOK. This is one of over 130,000,000 published books. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The only two relevant sources I could find are a flattering introductory presentation from an Albarelli book launch event that was reprinted by a Daily Kos blogger, and a Huffpo article that WP:REDFLAG-ishly states the claims in Alabarelli's book are 100% true. Since the book claims the CIA deliberately poisoned a French town and later murdered one of their scientists because he knew too much, I'm not sure how we could build an objective article from those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - book fails our tests of notability, even among fringe topics. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found brief mentions here and there, but nothing that would be seen as an in-depth reliable source. The HuffPo article was put out by their blogger network and wasn't an article written by one of their reporters, so it would be seen as a SPS. There just doesn't seem to be anything out there in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK, no coverage in reliable sources and published by dubious publishing house. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (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.