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. Sango123 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. Little content. Peephole 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What a joke this place is turning into--IworkforNASA 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This book appears quite notable. 83,600 Google hits [1] and an Amazon sales rank of 10,361 [2]. There are claims that it is one of the three best-selling books globally about the 9/11 attacks. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperbole (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom GabrielF 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Relevant proposed standard is Wikipedia:Notability (books) (or WP:BK for short). 1: Notability for author hasn't been solidly tested yet, and is debated on the talk page for his article. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7: No such claims made, much less cited. 6: Claim not made yet. Reviews at amazon only evidence the publisher's review plus individual customers, who don't cut the mustard. GRBerry 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Striver-cruft.--MONGO 09:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete one of the oldest, most prominent and most sold 9/11TM books, and you want to delete it? Sure, go ahead.--Striver 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this is sufficiently notable. My bar for notability of books is higher. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Mmx1 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Pseudotumor 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the rubicon per nom--Tbeatty 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to pass notability criteria--Pussy Galore 11:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably sockpuppet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ One of a series of personal attacks made in bad faith by Arthur upon myself. Check the results of the checkuser which I requested be done against myself. "No malicous activity by this IP". Arthur simply likes likes to spuriously cast douby upon the identity of contributors, without reference to any evidence. --Pussy Galore 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No (or very little, anyway) malicious activity done by the user we suspect you of having a commonality with, either. Misguided, yes. Malicious, no. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at best merge with Tin-foil hat --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.