Deletion of 9/11: The Big Lie

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: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70716F83B5B0C718EDDAF0894DA404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fB%2fBooks%20and%20Literature "book has been universally ridiculed by French news media". &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Obviously passes .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Yet another non-notable work not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policy for books under .  Gets ONE Google News hit, and that's to a conspiracy-theory newsite.  Part of a walled garden (media)|Walled Garden of conspiracy theory books. Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement, , and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  Take your pick.  Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:FRINGE)