Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK


 * 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

PROD contested on the grounds that it should be taken to AfD for wider discussion - please see here. I don't think that this book is notable - it appears to fail WP:NBOOK due to lack of coverage - and if the community is not minded to delete, I'd happily accept a redirect, as suggested on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 16:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. A brief search reveals at least one review, suit filed over the book, and suit settled. It does appear to be mentioned in other conspiracy-related books, however, some of these are self-published and I don't have a good feel for the extent of coverage. Location (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good work by Tokyogirl79 on improving the article. I have removed three of the sources that were redundant with other sources already in the article, but I think there are enough to pass WP:GNG. Location (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the article. By reading the review, the book provides different standpoints with non biased political ways of presenting the topics, under a non mainstream route of commercial texts. --Opus88888 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And how does that make it notable? GiantSnowman 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was difficult looking for sources considering that the hubbub over the book occurred back before the internet was as easily accessible as it is now, but I managed to find and source the article to where it passes notability guidelines. The book has been heavily mentioned in the news and other sources. It's not as widely noticed as many of the other books out there, but it passes. (On a side note, I have to agree with GiantSnowman that we don't keep articles because they provide different viewpoints and/or isn't biased in any way. We have to show that it's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines!)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well done Tokyogirl, a classic article save involving some hard work. Now clearly passes notability guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn - indeed, good work on improving the article and evidencing notability. GiantSnowman 13:42, 10 August 2012 (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.