Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Terrorist


 * 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 Merge book / delete author.
 * Merge The Third Terrorist to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories (presumably selectively).
 * Delete Jayna Davis.  Sandstein   20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The Third Terrorist

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As part of a major revamp of KFOR-TV, I came across this article about a 2005 book promoting an alleged conspiracy around the Oklahoma City bombing. I am struggling to find notability in reliable sources. It is mentioned in two sources, https://web.archive.org/web/20120924232653/http://www.laweekly.com/2005-07-07/news/the-rohrabacher-test/ and https://www.patriotledger.com/article/20110311/NEWS/303119753, but I am struck by the lack of coverage at publication in reliable sources. Most of the news materials I can find in the 2004-05 material are either from known non-reliable sources, notably WND (which was involved in the book's publication and apparently split from the publisher mid-process), or are actually letters to the editor.

I do not believe that the author is independently notable, either, and nominate her for deletion:

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I'm running into the same issue. There's some mild mention in relation to the politician using it in her report but not any coverage for the book itself. I'm leaning towards deletion, given that there's not really anything major out there about the book. No opinion on the author, but if she's deemed notable I'd recommend a selective merge in her article. The book article definitely needs some serious pruning. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: My stance on both articles is pretty much dependent on if there's a way to get more reliable sources. Chances are it's difficult because of the book promulgating a conspiracy theory, thus making it very difficult for any serious mainstream coverage... which may also be highly negative to begin with. If it's possible, then I'm keep, otherwise I'm in favor of delete. Nathan Obral • he/him • t  •  c  • 19:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral: but if deleted merge with Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. -47.33.186.77 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - part of the problem here is WP:BEFORE because any diligent editor conducting a search is likely to hit the same wall I did; that a search for "the third terrorist" inevitably brings up myriad sources that reference other events that involve more than two terrorists, such that one is described as "the third terrorist". But I managed to find the following:
 * It rates a mention here by John F. Lehman in the context of the 9/11 Commission. It doesn't rise to the leverage of significant coverage, but the idea of notability is - essentially - that people are talking about it. Its a book about a terrorist attack being referenced by someone like that in a context like that.
 * It gets name-checked here though I would say that's not really significant coverage either. It is, however, a reliable source and - again - there are people talking about it (other than the author and publishers), and in the context of an entirely unrelated event some 15+ years later.
 * This article is focused on the book and an individual discussed therein, but 7 years after the book was published. Along with the JPC article we're getting toward WP:LASTING in my view.
 * It is referenced in this dissertation. While it is academic in nature, it is just one PhD student's submission so how much weight it should be given is a matter for debate.
 * I'm not entirely convinced. I guess I'm defaulting to inclusionism because multiple, independent sources have referenced the work long after it was created, and not in sensationalist terms. They certainly aren't trying to sell copies.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete author, weak keep book - Weird stuff here. I agree the author is not independently notable per WP:BLP1E, and I couldn't find any good sourcing for her either, just weird stuff like this Wall Street Journal Opinion piece. (Her page has no valuable content, and so can be redirected to whatever target we end up with on the book.) Agree with User:Stalwart111 that the book itself is closer. It does seem the relevant content here should be Merged to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories.  Another potential source for context on Davis' reporting and the book here. Suriname0 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2021 (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.