Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination Science

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination Science[edit]

Yet another barely notable conspiracy theory book article by User:Striver. This book is currently ranked #253,068 at Amazon.com. The article claims that the book "has been widely praised as a ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination studies", but the supporting link is the amazon.com page of ANOTHER book. GabrielF 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, link structure as raised by nom brings up verifiability issues, wp:rs ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fullfills Wikipedia:Notability (books) --Striver 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd love to hear what criterion of the cited guideline you think this book satisfies. Pascal.Tesson 06:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --Mmx1 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable, lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a proposed guideline that lacks consensus (see it's talk page) My bar for notability of books is much higher. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to James H. Fetzer, where each of his small-press books can be expounded upon without needing a separate article for each of them. wikipediatrix 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article which is simply advertising.--MONGO 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete terrible mess----Fellow-edit 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising we don't want, reliable sources we do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:--Peephole 01:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tbeatty 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN book, conspiracycruft. Topic seems to already be well enough covered on James H. Fetzer. My Alt Account 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills criteria for entry--Pussy Galore 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per nom. Crockspot 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable, possibly hoax book. (I mean, not only are the alleged contents of the book a hoax, but the book, itself, may be a hoax). As noted by the nominator, the article refers to a review of a different book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:25, 11 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.