Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CIA and September 11 (book)(2nd)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:19Z 

The CIA and September 11 (book)

 * — (View AfD)

Spam promotional advertising for a conspiracy theory book...Wikipedia is not in the business of helping others further their attempts to profit...so Wikipedia is not a Soapbox applies here--MONGO 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article doesn't look like advertising to me; it's well-referenced as to the controversy around the book and its notability.  I think the arguments put forth in the 1st AfD still hold.  Geoffrey Spear 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article has multiple references to show notability and plenty of press coverage so it passes WP:N and WP:V. Jayden54 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the book is promoting a hoaxes without meaningful evidence, such as the idea that cell phone calls couldn't have been made and that commercial planes didn't crash at the Pentaogn and in Pennsylvannia. bov 21:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another non-notable work not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policy for books under WP:BK.  Gets ZERO google hits in all 7 pages of results except for conspiracy theory blogs and sites.  Part of a Walled Garden of conspiracy theory books. Vanispamcruftisement, WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  Take your pick.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Try Googling "Die CIA und der 11. September" - that returns 14,100 Google hits. If a book is notable in one language, it is notable in all languages.  Incidentally, there seems to be a great deal of information about this book in the German language Wikipedia, which someone really ought to translate.  --Hyperbole 08:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Tbeatty 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The press coverage passes WP:BK, establishing notability. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - soapboxing; very few of the references seem to be about the book, but about the theory it presents, making this another pov fork of 9/11 conspiracy theory material. Tom Harrison Talk 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, and as not meeting terms of WP:BK --Mhking 23:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written and well documented book review article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article looks nothing like spam advertising ("it has faced allegations ranging from absurdity and fostering anti-Americanism, to anti-Semitism, while the quality of its sourcing and the timing of its publication have given rise to debate within the German publishing industry" is hardly great ad copy) or soapboxing (ditto with the criticism in the article) - these are the only two arguments made by the nominator, and they seem baseless. Clear notability from prominent author + bestseller status. "I hate the very idea of this book" is not a reasonable argument for deletion, nor does retention of this article mean that Wikipedia is promoting its ideas Bwithh 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody cited WP:ILIKEIT, so that's Straw man. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither did I - and what I had in mind was User:bov's opinion that the book is promoting hoaxes and therefore there should be no article about it on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether the book's contents are agreeable or benign, its still a bestseller. And you just addressed one argument you thought I was making, so that's cherry-picking Bwithh 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Not self published. That's notable enough for me. Just H 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep book by a former-German cabinet minister discussed in the Daily Telegraph as sparking anti-Americanism; that all points to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable book. Edison 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets notability criteria for books, with a number 3 on the Der Spiegel NFB list. Complaints about the quality of the article would be better served with clean-up tags and action on the discussion page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, prior discussion can be found here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is currently the best article on the 9/11 books for deletion list. Arguments about not meeting WP:BK policy are not applicable, as there currently is no such policy.  Most of the Response section seems to be very critical of the book, rather than promoting or advertising it.  As for the references not being about the book or being a pov fork, I was only able to check six of them.  All of the references were about the book, some fully, others partially.  One of them just listed its position on the best-seller list, which is what it was cited for.  All of the references I checked, with exception to the best-seller reference, were critical of the views expressed in the book.  While the references seem to push the pov that 9/11 conspiracy theories are part of a "Panoply of the Absurd", the article does not seem to follow either that pov or a pov promoting the contents of the book.  Umeboshi 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete And quote: "…it has faced allegations ranging from absurdity and fostering anti-Americanism, to anti-Semitism, while the quality of its sourcing and the timing of its publication have given rise to debate within the German publishing industry." So, to have an article in Wikipedia, fringe absurdity opinions on paper qualify for such? No, delete it. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a platform to propel such propaganda. Lately, it seems anyone can put lies on paper and get it published. This project is not about spreading un-truths. If people keep telling me we are not in the truth business, then why is it some are constantly searching for the truth behind 9/11? For some, the effort to keep articles in Wikipedia about these "made-up-in-school-one-day-subjects" sounds like an agenda against what is fact, and seems as an agenda to spread a hatred of the American govt, and most likely against the American Nation itself. Delete it. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  06:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that simply writing about the book (and specifically including criticism of the book) is evidence of promotion of the book?. This book was written by a former German cabinet minister and was a bestseller published by a reputable publishing house. The book's success led to a 2,000 word article about it on the front page of the Wall Street Journal - does that mean the WSJ is promoting Anti-American propaganda too?

Here's an excerpt from the copy in the Factiva news database:

Rumor Mill: Conspiracy Theories About Sept. 11 Get Hearing in Germany --- Distrust of U.S. Fuels Stories About Source of Attacks; Videos, Hot-Selling Books --- Ex-Cabinet Minister's Tale

By Ian Johnson

2014 words

29 September 2003

The Wall Street Journal

A1

English

(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

MUNICH, Germany -- Andreas von Bulow's book has climbed the German bestseller list, his lectures are jammed and, after two years of mounting frustration, his ideas are gaining traction.

His thesis: The U.S. government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a tentative theory, he admits, based mostly on his doubt that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group launched the attacks. "That's something that is simply 99% false," he said at a reading of his book on the second anniversary of the attacks.

A crackpot? A conspiracy theorist who believes that Elvis lives and the CIA murdered Kennedy? Not exactly. Mr. von Bulow, 66 years old, is a former German cabinet minister, a trim, silver-haired man whose book comes from one of the country's most prestigious publishing houses and who lectures at well-known public institutions. He's not alone: In recent months, Germany's leading broadcaster, ARD, ran a purported documentary making similar claims, while half a dozen other German authors have published like-minded books.

(end excerpt)

Bwithh 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My gut feeling is that the hypothesis is untrue, but we are judging notability, not truth, Edison 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think Encyclopædia Britannica would hold these same standards or allow this? JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not, if it were not paper. They have an article on Adolf Hitler, and I'm sure they don't agree with him. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is totally different. The subject of Adolf Hitler is not a fringe theory made up in school one day. No wonder this project is starting to get slammed. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  15:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad this wasn't made up in school either- he was part of the executive branch of government of Germany. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nobody seems to be disputing the fact that this book is notable, verifiable, and passes WP:BK. If you think the article is POV, the appropriate reaction is to edit it - not to nominate it for deletion.  --Hyperbole 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be something that a lot of Wikipedians follow. See: Articles for deletion/Idiotarian, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, etc. Jinxmchue 05:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Yet another unjustified and timewasting VfD proposal. Ireneshusband 07:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep part of the User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard attack page, which is also up for deletion right now. Just because a book has a goofy theory, does not automatically mean is should be perged from wikipedia.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; the chap wrote some sensationalist drivel, there was a bit of to-do in the press afterwards, and now no-one cares other than a certain lunatic fringe. This article serves no purpose that Google doesn't.  Incidentally, one of the `keepers' above said the German encyclopaedia has lots of information on it.  It doesn't &mdash; the book is given a section in the article on its author, and doesn't have a separate article.  I think that's a lovely idea. And, mirabile dictu, the article on the author already has a section on the book! Junglecat makes many good points, as well.  Rosenkreuz 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep book is notable in that it was published by Andreas von Bülow, a former German SPD cabinet member, and the press coverage it has recieved.--Jersey Devil 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per it's inclusion in the German wiki and per above. Ours18 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Bwithh's arguments. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Tsunami Butler 15:45, 26 December 2006 (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.