Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Pearl Harbor


 * 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 09:22Z 

The New Pearl Harbor

 * — (View AfD)

Spam promotional advertising of a fairly well selling conspiracy theory book...however, Wikipedia is not in the business of helping others further their attempts to profit...so Wikipedia is not a Soapbox applies here.--MONGO 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - what makes you say this is advertising? There's even a "Criticism" section, which isn't really something you'd put into an advertising article. I did some research, and this book is reasonably popular on Amazon, and Google News returns some hits on this book, so it appears to be notable enough to be included. Jayden54 21:15, 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 News hits except for indymedia.org anarchist news 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  21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup any promotional tone (of which I see little, the article is mainly critical in tone if anything!) Notability is not subjective, and the well-published controversy over this book establishes it, conspiracy theory though it may be. Seraphimblade 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - soapboxing; ephemeral presentation of the author's 9/11 conspiracy theory. Inclusion in Wikipedia does more for the publisher than for our readers. Tom Harrison Talk 22:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination --Mhking 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It has an ISBN number. Just H 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Tbeatty 02:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete even though JustH's closely reasoned and extensive argument for retention is compelling. Eusebeus 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:BK states that a book is notable if its "author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer." David Ray Griffin appears to qualify, as he is a notable theologian and a particularly prominent 9/11 theorist.  The book not only has an ISBN but appears in 583 libraries  - obliterating the informal "at least a dozen libraries" standard for notability.  --Hyperbole 08:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. Mongo just nominated another 9/11 book as 'Spam promotional advertising' casting serious aspersions against his fellow editors. I expect him to provide proof in both these cases. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He did no such thing and repeating that lie is a violation of AGF. --Tbeatty 19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--RWR8189 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep part of the User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard 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) 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; what, just because it has a fucking ISBN number it should be kept?!? That is one of the most stupefyingly specious arguments I have ever encountered in my life. Between arguments of that calibre (and I lump the denigration of MONGO's character into the same category) and the idea that just because Griffin is a famous person (in certain highly dubious circles) we must help him promote his book, there is absolutely no good reason offered here as to why this trash should be kept. We need articles on the classics, on books which have made an impact on culture over the centuries and will probably continue to do so in centuries to come.  That's what an encyclopaedia is for, not elevating the status of the scribblings of a fringe-confined hack, which, in two year's time, will only be dispersed upon the tides of entropy. 'Swounds... Rosenkreuz 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You realize you're arguing for the deletion of like, 60% of Wikipedia? I'm a deletionist myself, but I think that I'm like most deletionists in that we still very much appreciate the expanded scope of Wikipedia (we just have a tighter notions of legitimate limits) Bwithh 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Cleanup and rebalance for POV if necessary. User:MONGO nomination argues only that this article is spam or soapboxing - but the article does not come across like this. In any case, the book has already sold 100,000+ copies in the US and has been discussed in a lengthy Washington Post Sept 2006 article which identifies the book's author as a leading figure in the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement. The same article cites a poll which suggests that over a third of the US public suspect US government involvement in the attacks. Even if such ideas of the book are totally nonsensical, there's clearly sufficient notability for an article here Bwithh 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see this August 2005 interview with Griffin in the Los Angeles Times magazine: Bwithh 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Followup I would also note that this book was included in the official selection of 99 books made available to all members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States aka the 9/11 Commission Bwithh 21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn, the renowned historian of U.S. history has said of it : "David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event." If the article is poorly written then it should be fixed. However this AfD proposal is an appalling waste of time and cannot be justified by any means. Ireneshusband 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Bwithh's arguments, again. Well done. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or perhaps merge all these self-promotional books into one article on books published by proiminent Truthers. We don't need to hear the same bollocks over and over again. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The author is a highly respected academic, while the book itself has been subject to numerous reviews in mainstream publications and by other academics. Some of these are quoted here. It also received a three-page full-colour treatment in the Daily Mail of June 25 2004 in which the writer, Sue Reid, took Griffin's allegations very seriously. That article can be found at any public library that stores British mainstream newspapers. There are other reviews in local newspapers in the US and elsewhere that are too numerous to mention.
 * Keep. --Tsunami Butler 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above and consider sanctions on POV pushers advocating it's deletion based on what other editors have proven to be false arguments. If you don't like a subject, or disagree with it, it doesn't get deleted, does it? If it's notable, it stays. And for comments to merge and condense them... why? We going to do the same with books on religion, and fork all the Jesus books off into one article? We don't need to hear that bollocks over and over again, either, per Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Moscatanix 22:13, 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.