Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: The Big Lie

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. John254 03:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11: The Big Lie

9/11: The Big Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for Mongo I'm not following you. Which editors do you contend are making a profit? Did the author or publisher edit the article? Is there one of those Amazon links where 5% goes to the referrer? To claim that editors have a profit motive is a serious allegation and the opposite of AGF. What do you base it on? I'm sure you would never smear and besmirch your fellow editors without concrete proof. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I not once said any editor was trying to make a buck, I stated that the article is spam advertising...don't go twisting things around.--MONGO 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Do you not know what the words "spam" and "advertising" mean? If no one involved in the article is trying to sell anything to make money, then by definition the article is not advertising. Geoffrey Spear 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am sure I do know what they mean...Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. If you have no better way to communicate without insulting me, then please read our civility policy.--MONGO 11:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thank you, although I'm not sure MONGO will agree with such simple logic. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVAMP I have totally revamped the article now. To the delete !voters - note how I've focussed on the 1)notability/popularity and 2)significant criticism. I've left out doing the synopsis as I haven't read the book. The State Department rebuttal link may be a place to use to identify the key claims (but we shouldn't turn the synopsis into just a repetition/endorsement of the official rebuttal. To the !keep voters: Yes, I've taken out virtually everything from the original article. Total revamp was necessary, I think, otherwise a line by line revision of the old version would be more time-consuming and mired in searching/wrangling over sources and interpretations. If there are nuggets that are salvageable (i.e. they must be NPOV and clearly solidly sourced) then, well, you can retrieve them in the article history and pop them somewhere reasonable in the new version Bwithh 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, there is no WP:BK policy. There is a template at the top of the page explaining this. The template specifically states that references to WP:BK should not describe it as "policy". Arguing that it violates a nonexisting policy is meaningless. Umeboshi 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the book is widely acknowledged as a contributor to the currently strained relations between the U.S. and France, and thus should be represented in WP. The article is not one of the better pieces of writing on WP (to put it mildly) though the "Controversy" section is not too bad. Better to call for cleanup, references, etc. rather than deletion. Raymond Arritt 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BK. Keep - If it's a best-seller, it passes WP:BK. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - soapboxing; too few reliable secondary sources about the book. The article reflects this lack, being largely a presentation of the author's theory, and a point-counter-point analysis of its plausibility. Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article seems well referenced. The book, and author, are both notable. The article makes outside references to its notability. An inclusion of a rebuttal from the United States Department of State helps invalidate the claim of spam or advertising. Umeboshi 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/POV Cleanup Bestseller in multiple countries, substantial media coverage in at least France and US. Specifically identified as a significant "misinformation" source by the US State Department[2] Bwithh 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as one of the earliest and best known of the tin-foil conspiracy books about the events surrounding 9/11. --Mhking 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented and verifiable. It seems like there is a campaign to delete all 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has an ISBN, that's notable enough for me. Just H 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. actually an ISBN isn't even a guarantee that a book exists Bwithh 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN is assigned by the publisher of a book for tracking and ordering purposes. That goes against your assertion, Bwithh. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement profiteering Tbeatty 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Vanispamcruftisement. Eusebeus 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you have a true problem with the article, try a clean-up tag instead of deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm finding the claims that this article should be summarily deleted as "vanispamcruft" totally bizarre. This article needs a substantial criticism section and general rebalancing, but that's no reason for deletion. I don't know the latest cumulative sales figures for this book, but Time magazine reported in May 2002 that this book was no.1 in France's best-seller list for six of the seven weeks after its launch"[5]. It has been published in 28 languages[6] and has received worldwide press attention and has been specifically addressed in US Department of Defense press conferences[7]. This article as it is has POV problems and needs a good scrubbing, but why on earth do people think this book needs Wikipedia to sell itself or as a soapbox? Clearly there's a valid encyclopedia article topic here - the book's ideas may be totally ridiculous but its notability in public discourse has been well established. Bwithh 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm considering a stubification/revamp. That seems to be a most useful way of going about this Bwithh 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVAMP I have totally revamped the article now. To the delete !voters - note how I've focussed on the 1)notability/popularity and 2)significant criticism. I've left out doing the synopsis as I haven't read the book. The State Department rebuttal link may be a place to use to identify the key claims (but we shouldn't turn the synopsis into just a repetition/endorsement of the official rebuttal. To the !keep voters: Yes, I've taken out virtually everything from the original article. Total revamp was necessary, I think, otherwise a line by line revision of the old version would be more time-consuming and mired in searching/wrangling over sources and interpretations. If there are nuggets that are salvageable (i.e. they must be NPOV and clearly solidly sourced) then, well, you can retrieve them in the article history and pop them somewhere reasonable in the new versionBwithh 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously passes WP:BK. The editorial process has probably already solved any POV problems the article may have had, but if any remain, well, that can be handled with more editing. --Hyperbole 08:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A contoversial but notable book. The fact that the US State Dept specifically addressed this book and its allegations adds to its notability. US Dept of State - F.A.A.F.A. 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - At the time, this book was both controversial and topical Not liking its content is not a reason for deleting the article. "Snorkel | Talk" 10:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. frummer 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep since it's a bestseller and had an entire article in TNYT dedicated to it, it easily passes the notability bar. An article is not worthy of deletion simply because it needs a POV cean up. Ours18 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Even though I think it's status as a "bestseller" is irrelevant due to the fact that it was a bestseller in a language other than English, I think the other references(Time, NYT, USDS) prove notability. --Wildnox(talk) 07:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For this article to maintain NPOV it should go beyond saying that it is "controversial" in the introduction. As read, use of the words "journalist" and "highly controversial" still give its theories credibility. The intro should clearly state that sources such as Liberation discredit it; NYT: "book has been universally ridiculed by French news media". — ERcheck (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion about the NPOV balance of the article. Others will disagree. In any case, that's not an argument for deletion. Bwithh 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... note that I labeled my note as a "comment"; I'm not arguing for or against deletion. Also, I did not question the word "journalist", just that in my first read of the article, the introduction does not give a sense of the issues raised concerning the book, which are key reasons used in asserting its notability above, e.g. U.S. Government response, NYT mention, book written to refute it, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't put the NYTimes mention in the intro, as from the abstract link, as its seems to be a source of secondary reporting here. I'll add a bit about criticism in the French media and by the US govt in the intro though. Bwithh 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the BBC[8], the National Review[9], the New Statesman[10], the Boston Globe[11] and the Washington Times[12] all straightforwardly call Meyssan a journalist (the the Washington Times, while asserting his ideas are "loony", still calls Meyssan a "respected French journalist". These sources are from both sides of the Atlantic and represent centre/centre-left sources as well as US mainstream right-wing sources. Bwithh 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An early version of my revamp of the article stated that the book was highly controversial and criticized in the intro - I took that out as a NPOV tweak, but I'm happy to tweak it back Bwithh 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rebalanced the lead after consultation with ERcheck Bwithh 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just because it's a product doesn't make it commercial spam. Should we delete iPod, too? —Trevyn 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although I disagree in labelling this article “spam”, I do think that as a whole it is in desperate need of a rewrite in order to increase the quality of the article. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 17:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • 'Keep Per above. Notable in France, who is a notable country, with notable coverage of the book. I don't get the commercial/spam aspect by nom which is not clearly defined. How's it spam? By that logic all articles on books which aren't already on the New York Times bestsellers list are spam. Its almost like an ad hominem nomination...? Moscatanix 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a description of a best selling book. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A garbage book but unfortunately notable. Lawyer2b 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above by Raymond Arritt, Torinir, Umeboshi, and Bwithh. Nominator needs to stand in the corner for fifteen minutes, dessert and snacking privilages are revoked for two nights. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 25 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/11:_The_Big_Lie&oldid=1070180972"