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, thus it is kept. Be bold and move, redirect, or merge it as you see fit. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:06, Dec. 17, 2005

Previously AfD'd; result was merge; merge delayed, since completed. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Some discussion can be found here at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#September 11, 2001 researchers. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are two articles of similar title: 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Also, September 11 researchers redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories. All of this should, in my opinion, be merged into one article. I prefer "9/11 conspiracy theories" as the lump-in article. --Durin 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works for me; I think that was the recommendation of the Previous AfD. The content then at September 11, researchers was to be merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. That never happened, and the articles developed for a while as different versions of the same topic. I found it a few weeks ago and finished the merge, but there is a question now whether September 11 researchers should be kept, since it has developed independently since the last AfD. That's not my view, so I would prefer someone else present that case. I think the content at 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers should be merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers should then be deleted. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because the merge recommended by the previous deletion has been completed. I think I need to make some things clear as well, since Durin and Tom are obviously unaware of some things that I did:
  • In response to the consensus favouring a merge after the last discussion, I tagged September 11 researchers for a merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories.
  • When nothing happened, I moved the article to 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers, to make it clear that it was there only temporarily and could be deleted once the merge was complete.
  • The merging recommended above by Durin has already been completed.

Ingoolemo ^talk 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Yeah the 9/11 conspiracy theories bit at least recognises the Saddam Hussein theory. I said it was Saddam Hussein from the moment the planes flew in, and I don't get why people think its so hard to believe. The 9/11 one mentions it, whilst this other one doesn't. That theory should be expanded a fair bit though. Oh, also, I saw no mention of anti-globalisation terrorist group S11 being a theory. They were widely blamed, and the group was totally destroyed as a result. Oh and don't forget China. China had a motive to do it, so as to destroy the American economy to precipitate an invasion at a later date. After all, China was very annoyed at America then after they had shot down one of China's spy planes, and China is America's biggest challenge to world dominance, and the most likely country to take over control. These 2 theories do need to be mentioned. But since I personally believe the Saddam Hussein theory, I think that that needs to be explored an awful lot more than it is.Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it was China that shot down an American spy plane, not the other way around Cynical 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Waek keep, certainly well-referenced. Stifle 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if it's already been merged. Rhobite 19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No useful information after merge. JFW | T@lk 01:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and Move! The results of the old VFD wasn't even a clear concensus, and the listings have grown and become a lot more detailed since then. For example, it now includes physicist Steven Jones. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article is way too long at 76 KB, so there's no good reason for the list not to be split off as a separate article (not a section or a subpage). I propose that it be moved to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, as this is an NPOV title, and it also avoids the concerns that some had about the old "September 11 researchers" title. This title makes it clear that it's a listing of researchers with a common basic position about 9/11 which questions the official account. Blackcats 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Strong Keep with Strawberry on top and Move agree 100% with above, move to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. --Striver 23:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, should never have been a sub namespace article, how about September 11 reappraisal or some such (if scope is larger than just a bio of the researchers themselves)? zen master T 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: The Wiki is all about dissemination of knowledge, not the suppression thereof. That said, the articlle title needs revision to delete the loaded term conspiracy, which in this case amounts to discounting the credibility of researcers. Ombudsman 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but modify - the researchers are not the notable part of this endeavor: their hypotheses and conjectures are. I'd strongly suggest replacing their biographies with their conclusions about 9/11 as the conclusions are much more relevant to the rest of the article. B.Wind 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment: That's exactly why the two articles never should have been merged, disingenuously, especially many months after a muddled debate. Ombudsman 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment: After the original AfD resulted in merge, why was it not merged? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably because no one did it. zen master T 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-amazingly refernced and well-formatted, however if this information is already inserted (ie.merged) into another article elsewhere, then delete. Still, it sould be noted with the thesis that this article is quite informative.-MegamanZero|Talk 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given the fact that it's merged.Gator (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it is merged...use MOAB to complete deletion process.--MONGO 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm relisting this one to get more input. The previous VFD several months ago was interpreted as a vote to merge, but there was no definate concensus. Then nobody merged it until several months later - when the article was bigger and the article it was being merged into was bigger. Now the combined article is 76 KB - over twice the size as the suggested maximum. Blackcats

• Delete if merged. Arkon 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge is done, goodbye fork. If the combined article is too big, trim it. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to wherever it got merged to. Note that to preserve authorship attribution under the GFDL, "merge and delete" is NOT an option. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and Move I have to agree with an above comment that the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is too long at over 76 KB. I also think that the list should be split off as a separate article (not a section or a subpage). It seems inappropriate to have this list set into the middle of the article. I also think that it should be moved to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, which is a good NPOV title. Everyday there are more researchers joining the 9/11 truth movement and getting the courage to speak up, particuarly academics, like Steven Jones. I would expect that this section on the researchers will only grow.Bov 07:46, 17 December 2005 (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.