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 Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory), which is what is up for deletion. Keep (or at least no consensus, which is effectively the same thing) Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. The principle of splitting long articles up with short introductory paragraphs in the main article, linking to a fuller article on a sub-topic is well established (if people believe less detailed content needs to be included that needs to be decided editorially using article talk pages, not the blunt all or nothing afd result). However, here we have the trouble of two articles serving the same purpose. As this is the one up for deletion, I'm deleting this one.

As always articles need continual improvement, and it is clear that Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center needs to be made more neutral etc, but this is going way outside the area of AFD- time for you to get back to the article talk page to sort these things out. Petros471 09:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory)[edit]

This article was split off from 9/11 conspiracy theories without any discussion. I believe one 9/11 conspiracy article is more than enough, similar to the Kennedy assasination which also has only one page dedicated to CT's. Peephole 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for detailed dicussion on this AfD, please see the talk page.

Note Due to a procedural error in this split, we are trying again. Naturally, we will respect the outcome of this VfD as applying also to the newly created article, but a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories#World Trade Center as it now stands, and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center will give a better impression of the issue at hand.--Thomas Basboll 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the 9/11 conspiracy theories page is over 120 kB in size and needs to be split up. This article is already 22kb, and probably should take other parts of the other article as well and will probably end up being about 30 kB in size. We have seperate pages for Creationism and Intelligent Design; just because people are kooks doesn't mean that they aren't notable, and given how many people believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories (especially regading WTC 7) I think it is relevant to Wikipedia. In any event, having a 120+ kB article is rather unreasonable; its just too long and deserves to be split up into a number of subarticles rather than just being a 40 page long mess. Titanium Dragon 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Titanium dragon. Good article too. --Pussy Galore 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned user for trolling[reply]

  • POV fork? This is a copy of the sections from the main 9/11 conspiracy theories page; if there are NPOV problems with it, then they should be corrected anyway. Also, I added in the rest of the relevant sections having to do with this topic from the main article; once this vote is over and we decide to keep this subarticle, we should remove those sections from the main article and summarize them, with a link to this article. As of right now, this article is 32kB, right up at the maximum limit.
I agree that the intro needs work; I wrote it but it isn't really very good at introducing the article. Obviously, help is appreciated. Titanium Dragon 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, don't be a bureaucracy type :) The discussion on the Talk:9/11 Conspiracy theories had begun before TitaniumDragon created this page. 4 or 5 ppl were discussing this matter. There was no clear consensus - everyone stood with one's arguments. Then, sort of indenpendently, this page was created and the case went "public". I see it as a continuation of that discussion, I understand you may not. I know it does not follow "protocols" but since we're already here - don't let the bureaucracy machine got you between it's gears ;) --SalvNaut 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it looks like bureaucracy. But this AfD has become so complex and so oddly political that it would genuinely behove us to delete the thing, and to do the split as a separate exercise. There is a huge danger of confusion otherwise, and the closing admin doesn't stand a chance of getting it right. There are times when a procedure is needed, and when things have become overcomplicated, such as here, I believe process is approriate. Note that I am in favour of a proper split. I just do not think that this is the discussion to do it in. I fear that if we do it here then everyone loses Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It was POV before it was split. The original article has failed and will continue to fail WP:OR and WP:RS, but we tolerate it because it is a catch-all for this sort of thing. We don't, however, tolerate an expansion of what's already broken. Morton devonshire 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you don't tolerate it, Morton, but wikipedia is not about the tyranny of the majority. If the believers of the official story have a point to make then that is provided space on wikipedia. Alternate viewpoints are also provided space. This issue is not large, it is huge. Over 100 million Americans believe something fishy is going on with 9/11. And that's just Americans. Just because en.wikipedia.org is in English doesn't mean it is the "Voice of America." If wikipedia can have individual articles about and obscure primitive fish-like animal from the Middle Cambrian Maotianshan shales of China then it definitely has the space, in fact the imperative, for articles about the thesis that the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on 911 due to fire, an unprecedented historical event, is untrue, and that the event is more consistent with controlled demolition. If you don't like the article, list points that refute it, but you may not delete it. Kaimiddleton 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP: OR and WP: RS are very important, which is why this page is so well sourced. All research is original; OR bans users from doing original research then putting it into articles. However, this is not OR from readers, but external OR which is readily verifiable. As WP: RS points out, our job is to report facts and opinions; a lot of this article is about opinions of people, and as such the title of the page reflects this. Additionally it is pointed out who thinks these things and why, the sources of these opinions, and the sources they got their information from (such as video footage of the event). This article has very few things which are not sourced, and though it could certainly use some work making it read better and sound more professional, on the whole it is one of the better sourced articles on Wikipedia; it isn't like Otherkin or Therianthropy, other articles I try and deal with but which have severe problems with source material being unreliable as it makes sweeping claims but often does so without any actual basis for those claims, and as they are trying to describe a phenomenon rather than what otherkin.net says, it is a problem. This article doesn't have this problem as it is about what conspiracy theorists say and various theories they hold and why they hold them; the fact that they are conspiracy theorists doesn't matter as we want to know what they think and why, not what actually happened. This article describes one of their theories, and is, I think, pretty clear on the matter. It needs some work, and I'd be glad to have help cleaning it up. Titanium Dragon 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh man, you really can't think of a reason why US gov (illuminati - where did you got them from?) wouldn't like the towers to look like being blown up? I'll give you a hint - "1993 bombing, security strengthened,who's to blame?" Eh, those home-made "debunking" arguments... Focus on the article, sources, papers, etc. --SalvNaut 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely impertinent response: Actually, the way the Towers were designed, pretty much any failure of its internal support structure, no matter how or where it was caused, would have let to a straight-down collapse. You might be able to have designed a way to "get lucky" and have the collapse tend to be directed a few hundred feet in one direction or the other, but that's about it. A lot of people think that if, say, you'd knock out all the ground supports on only one side of a building, that it would tend to tip over horizontally like someone knocking over a soda bottle. But that's just not the way physics works. (Okay, okay, if Godzilla came along - a really f---ing gigantic Godzilla - and yanked the towers right out of the ground with his mighty paws, I'm sure a lot more damage would have been caused in the immediate area. But that's the only way.) --Aaron 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, one of the things I've heard about skyscrapers is that firefighters really fear this type of design that tends to "pancake" vertically (usually without much warning) in a chain reaction fashion. Anyway I still feel that the controlled-demolition theory forces us to conclude that the illuminati are both lazy and stupid. I predict that a new class of more clever evil overlords will soon unseat them. My Alt Account 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I thought at first it would likely tip over as well, but once I thought about it at length I realized that the physics I'd learned in HS pretty much showed that it would just pancake. The only way a building like that wouldn't is if it actually got hit hard by something which pushed the building a long ways horizontally without destroying enough of its veritcal integrity that it would just collapse straight down or near straight down. Of course, some of the local stuff might be ejected, but given the building stood up to the inital blow (a plane really doesn't weigh -that- much compared to something as big as the WTC towers) it should have pancaked. Of course, a lot of the basis of the argument is that the tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, given no other scyscraper had. Titanium Dragon 07:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, you (me too) probably don't know anything about the towers for real. All you know is something you heard about the towers and what you like to belive. Bazant&Zhou paper - tell me, which one of you understands it completely? Let the scientists do their job, we will report it. --SalvNaut 10:04, 14 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.
More