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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was {{prod}}ded, but tag was removed so I'm bringing it here. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, and has been a stub for over eight months now with little attempt to expand. Either move to cleanup or delete. Aaron 02:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BALLS, WP:VAIN, etc. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC) On the fence. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be proved that he is a notable author. The name also appears to be a pseudonym but he wouldn't be the first author to do that. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a better case for notability is made than "[his one work] has been published in many forms and length". Sandstein 07:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The Terror Timeline" gives 15 200 google hits [1], is sold in Amazon. com [2], is prominently refered to in 9/11 Truth sources. "The Terror Timeline" and "Paul Thompson" together still give 11 800 hits [3].--Striver 02:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The book even sold out here [4]. --Striver 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Terror Timeline" is a very unspecific query, don't you think?--Mmx1 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's funny. I get just under 1000. All goes to show that google results are usually not relevant to AfD nominations. I have been known to use them myself in the past, but with the recent examples that I've seen, I no longer consider them to hold any weight. Bobby1011 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My nomination doesn't claim Paul Thompson fails WP:BIO. It claims the article sucks as currently written. --Aaron 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't grounds for deletion; it's grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. Review WP:DP for more. You may also profit from perusing User:The_Cunctator; he suggests that deletion of articles be forbidden, and his arguments have some merit. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It can be grounds for deletion; see my post below quoting WP:GAFD. I will go check out The_Cunctator's page though, and see what he has to say. (I will not, however, attempt to pronounce his username out loud, just to be on the safe side.) --Aaron 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but there's a difference between citing WP:DP and WP:GAFD; the former is policy with a strong community consensus; the latter is an essay that never attempted to gain consensus. It's not even a guideline. As for cunctator, it's just Latin for 'delayer'. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Paul Thompson is notable, but the article needs POV removal badly. I think remove POV, cleanup, wikify, expand. It is obviously a fact that not every person who claims to be or seems to be a 9/11 related researcher qualifies for an article, but he is relevant and notable by Wikipedia standards. How could this person possibly be less qualifiable for an article than Andrew Dice Clay??? That is unless controversy becomes part of the equation and then we see taptaptap on the delete button. SkeenaR 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. I am skeptical as to whether or not this author is notable, but in any case The Terror Timeline is more notable than he is. Any relevent information should be moved to the aforementioned article. Isopropyl 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete nn--MONGO 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as published author with an audience of more than 10,000 as per the policy. His book fluctuated between 30,000 and 40,000 on Amazon.com's sales ratings, and as such likely has the audience noted above. NPOV issues are almost never grounds for deletion. That's what editing is for. Batmanand | Talk 11:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Per WP:GAFD: If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed. --Aaron 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems sufficiently notable. TigerShark 14:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough. --Terence Ong 15:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Batmanand. Need cleanup to meet NPOV. —ERcheck @ 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Batmanand, but cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jporcaro (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 February 2006.
• Delete Until it is proven, verifiably and not just with unverifiable claims, that the author is notable I'll vote delete. Striver up to his old antics. With so many of his articles getting majority delete afd's and he be accused so many times by contributing wikipedians about his POV edits isn't it about time he at least get a block from one of the administrators for exhausting the community's patience?--Jersey Devil 21:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the behaviour of Striver, please either talk to him personally on talk pages (assuming good faith, whcih you seem not to be doing at the moment), or start a request for comment on him if you think it is that bad. Please do not bring in your opinions of any particular user into this AfD. It is unlikely to ever be relevant; in this case it certainly is not. Batmanand | Talk 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that patience with bogus deletion attempts is being tested. Deletion is unlikely. SkeenaR 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article says nothing about the notable status of the subject, save that he is a world traveller and has written something pertaining to 9/11. The substance of the article appears to be a critique of the subjects' published timeline of 9/11. This critique violates WP:NPOV and should be cleaned up to conform to WP standards. I would find it hard to vote either way on the subject of the article, as it doesn't include any facts upon which to base a judgement. Could more facts be provided by the author or another editor, please?  (aeropagitica)  22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs improvement through consensus editing. It does not meet Wikipedia deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN UV --rogerd 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source "published by a reliable publisher". Terror Timeline is a primary source. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a reliable source. Morton devonshire 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is editing rules, nothing about doing a article. With your resoning, we can delete the Bible article.--Striver 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and try, I dare ya. Morton devonshire 01:31, 3 March 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.