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 TURNIP... er, mean KEEP. -Doc^g 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(third nom)

Completely unencyclopediac. Part of a walled garden of conspiracy theory articles controlled by a cabal of trolls and POV pushers. Previously a POV fork from main article. Improperly kept on previous articles in violation of truth. Article exists only to allow Truthers to earn a buck and serves as an advertisement for their cause. TheOnlyChoice 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Turnip Will not be deleted currently. I vote turnip to avoid drama. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Um. There is a big, huge, titanic, enormous problem with this article: the hypothesis has zero basis in peer-reviewed research. 100% of the sources are conspiracy theory websites, whose reliability is slightly below that of an alcoholic crack addict. Why are there no rebuttals in the professional journals? Because the professional journals, without exception, treat the theory as the twaddle it clearly is and won't give it house room. But it has got a lot of coverage in the popular press, albeit again mostly borderline incredulity. I'd say it needs drastic pruning and the lead needs to eb rewritten to reflect the fact that nobody who had not already made their mind up has lent any support to this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Just because it's utter bloody nonsense doesn't make it non-notable. It's along the lines of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and other such paranoid conspiracy *COUGH*drivel*COUGH* hypotheses. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't have said it better than TheOnlyChoice --rogerd 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article documents a social phenomenon - that of the facts of the hypothesis and the existence of the hypothesis. It does not argue for the hypothesis, nor does it argue against it. It simply, correctly and competently documents it as a hypothesis that exists. The topic is suitable for encyclopaedic coverage and the article simply gives it that. There was a certain inevitability that, as soon as a WP:Peer Review was asked for, someone would take the opportunity to propose it for deletion. There is no issue with that since an AfD is, in many ways, a review process. However it is important to make the distinction between the article which documents the demolitionists' hypothesis, which this handles correctly, and the hypothesis itself. A correct and encyclopaedic article, which this strives to be, documents that citable facts of the existence of the hypothesis without either validating or invalidating that hypothesis. The article needs to be judged on the merits of how it handles the topic - a notable, well reported topic - not on the merits of the various opinions people have about the truth or otherwise behind the destruction of the buildings. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comment "POV Fork" in the nomination is incorrect. The article was created as a content fork, which is a valid, recommended and documented procedure when the parent article has grown too long, and the content which formed it was deleted from the parent article. As for trolls and POV pushers, as someone who has been working on the article itself while absolutely not supporting any thoughts about controlled demolition being respinsible for the destruction of the buildings, I do find that comment rather hard to swallow. You don't need to believe a thing is true when working on making a decent article about it. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, once again this article is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, a page which violates several policies.[1] This article has been put up for deletion twice before, and everytime the article is kept (first time keep, second time no consensus).
  In addition, User:TheOnlyChoice who nominated this article has few or no other edits, Just over 20 in all, and this account has been solely used for Afds. This is a bad faith nomination by probable sockpuppet. User:Hemlock Martinis, User:Nyp and User:Bouke in the last AfD[2] this "user" nominated all called that nomination a bad faith nomination. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb: Your argument here has nothing to do with the question of whether the article should be deleted. 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF (talk • contribs)

Okay, here is my argument why it should be kept. I keep repeating myself on all of these AfDs, sorry GabrielF that I didn't repeat myself here again. Even though this hypothesis is kooky and, in my opinion, total bullshit, that doesn't mean that it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. I would not support this hypothesis on the 9/11 page, but there is a small fringe group which support this theory, and which have written a lot of articles supporting the theory.

See: Flat Earth Society Apollo moon landing hoax accusations Kennedy assassination theories for others group that believes kooky theories. The first two pages have never been put up for deletion, and the JFK page was closed early because of overwhelming consensus to keep.

I think these editors who disagree with this theory should spend there time adding condemnations about this theory on the wikipage, instead of attempting to silence these conspiracy theorists. This takes work and research though. It is much easier to simply delete ideas you disagree with, then researching why those ideas are fallacious and have no merit. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The hypothesis is complete nonsense, but the fact that a lot of people believe it is unfortunately notable. The article does a good job of describing that notability. --Bduke 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bored Keep This is the 3rd nomination for this article! Have you nothing better to do? The article is in fact encyclopedic, and wikipedia if full of balanced articles on kooky theories. Seen the Flat Earth Society article? Just because there's an article doesn't mean that wikipedia endorses the concept. If the public want to find out what all the fuss is about, where better to go than a balanced article on wikipedia? Deleting the article will make wikipedia a poorer place and a less useful encyclopedia.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 107 references. I love the name-calling in the nomination – very persuasive. — goethean ॐ 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and speedy close We've been through this many times now. Same circumstances, same result.--Húsönd 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've just read about this entrepreneur from UK who is making furniture from human hair. Lovelight 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what could be made from recycled AfDs? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This nomination was unnecessary and tendentious, especially in light of previous discussion and consensus. Please find a more productive manner of contributing to Wikipedia, thank you. Badagnani 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nonsense, yes, but encyclopedic nonsense none the less. GabrielF 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - valid encylopedic entry for people looking for information. --RedHillian 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Yes, the subject is a conspiracy theory not grounded in reality. However, it's very notable, easily verified as notable and currently undergoing Peer Review to improve the article's quality. The AfD is premature, and worded in a rather uncivil manner. - Kesh 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Fiddle Faddle, Travb, Seabhcan. SalvNaut 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hoax, and a fairly silly one, but notable nonetheless, with multiple verifiable reliable sources. I worked in a similar building at that time, and I would have made serious inquiries if explosives had been installed around the structural columns. The plane crashes were a sufficient cause to bring down the flimsy buildings which lacked good fireproofing of structural members. But if this many sources said people believed the moon was made of green cheese, we should have an article noting the fact, which can also be a good debunking page. Edison 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fantastic article. Maybe this is a GA nom put in the wrong place? ;) --- RockMFR 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't imagine an article could be deleted based on the argument offered in this nomination. An article can't be deleted on the basis of unsubstantiated claims about its editors' motives, can it? Even substantiated claims about such motives would be irrelevant if the article ultimately met WP standards (e.g., by the efforts of other editors). No specific criticism of the article's content has been offered.--Thomas Basboll 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Turnips, per above. I still think this page is original research by synthesis, and will be until enough social scientists write papers about a Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center - and even if they ever do, I bet the papers are called something like Jewish Lightning -- Conspiracy theories about Building 7. But per Hipocrite, deletion is unlikely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the subject matter itself is unlikely to ever have a valid peer review, it's pretty well established as a notable conspiracy theory. And if you want a more scientifically grounded view of the conspiracist's claims, try this book. As soon as I can scrape together the cash, I'm going to get a copy and use it to help improve the article. -- Kesh 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• emphatic Keep Article is well-sourced. Theory is notable, though absurd. That's ok, as article does not advocate truth of the theory. Derex 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And I vote Potato(e). Part of a walled garden of conspiracy theory articles, supported by refs to conspiracy theorist websites. Next thing you know, advocates will be creating an article entitled Guvment agents alter Pentagon parking lot video to cover up missile attack hypothesis. No wait, am I supposed to be Mr. Green today, or Mr. White, or Mr. Brown? Nuclear, can you remind me what my role is today? Sing it with me now [Copyvio removed - FAAFA]. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you bring it up, I believe I said it was to go on articles and complain about sources ... what are you complaining about here? If you care to watch the movie, there was no conspiracy, none of them were inside workers. GG. Anyway this looks like a bite you won't be taking *cough* giggle narf point. --NuclearZer0 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wingnut theory, yes, but a notable wingnut theory that should have an article. delldot | talk 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep:per Fiddle Faddle. Bad Faith Nomination from a Walled Garden of Anti-9/11-Truth Cabalists ™ ;-) Is it written somewhere in the Official Cabal Playbook that all nominations must allege that editors are trying to help generate profits for some nebulous nefarious unnamed person or group? - Steven E. Jones Defense Fund 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Accusing your felow editors of POV pushing is not a reason to delete an article. WP:AGF. --NuclearZer0 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't work on that page, for the same reasons mainstream engineers don't bother to spend much time rebuttaling the CT misinformation....it's not worth their time. My comment isn't a reflection on many who have put time into the page either because they find the issue interesting or because they are determined to create a NPOV article of the event. I still think it should be retitled to Conspiracy theories regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center, however. As the article won't be deleted...I "vote"....Rhubarb--MONGO 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The mainstrem editor has spoken. ;) SalvNaut 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cannot agree with any sentence in the nomination. Notable conspiracy theory. The Pet Goat says so. William Avery 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep On part because it seems like the deletion is being pushed by a cabal of POV pushers themselves. I disagree with the CD hypothesis myself, but I don't think it should be deleted, because it is a notable social phenomenon. I mean blink 182's Mark Hoppus and Charline Sheen believe this theory. South Park based an entire episode off of this, parodying the wingnuts. Plus... THERE'S A THING CALLED A CRITICISM SECTION. Which, is not based off sources from wingnut websites. --Saint-Paddy 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where's this so called cabal of POV pushers, exactly? Are we the ones voting Turnip and Rhubarb? Did you just decide not to read the discussion? Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try not to be so paranoid. Doesnt seem like he is mentioning your name at all. --NuclearZer0 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Highly notable, definitely encyclopedic. .V. 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep notable and important to wikipedia. Free expression is absolute. Wiki ian 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article expresses an issue with a portion of the population of the USA and other countries in the world. I agree with Saint-Paddy and others. (BTW: A view of the contributions by the nominator shows an entry onto the Conspiracy Noticeboard [3] and an FYI notice sent to other members.)Lmcelhiney 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very Noteable, Very Idiotic. However, even idiotic theorys can become notable, and sane people can find out on wiki what the nitwits are blathering about. 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Personally biased about this page, because I was there. I did not sense or suspect any controlled demolition during or after the attack. Abe Froman 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That you were present and saw no evidence of controlled demoliton may, if citable, be a useful part of the article. Additionally, the fact that you saw no evidence for it neither makes the article suitable for deletion nor for keeping. It is a valid personal statement but not a valid reason to "vote" either way. The article is not about whether the destructon had any elements of controlled demolition in it. The article is about a hypothesis that some people have proposed to explain the demolition. As one of the editors who have worked on the article I can state that I think the hypothesis is WP:BALLS, but that does not prevent it from being notable. The article is about a notable piece of what appears to be ludicrous folklore. It does not express any opinions or conclusions about this hypothesis, it simply documents that it exists. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very reluctant keep - This is notable because there are sufficient numbers of 9/11 conspiracists who believe this. It's clearly WRONG, but enough wrong people are notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dogpile Keep. Article satisfies all inclusion criteria. Is someone trying to make a WP:POINT? — coelacan talk — 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable and fairly neutral to me. Atlantis Hawk 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that some organizations have published material specifically to discredit this theory only adds to its notability. Also, the article doesn't say "The WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition." The article is about the hypothesis itself. What we have to do is provide NPOV coverage of the hypothesis (even if it's crap). A truly NPOV coverage requires outlining both sides of the argument. Quack 688 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If I may, I'd like to remind the nominator of WP:AGF. I think the name-calling in the nomination is entirely uncalled for (but then again, I think name-calling is always uncalled for.) .V. 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per unencyclopedic consipiracy cruft material and WP:NOR. --Strothra 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course. The only reason for this article is so the conspiracy theory people can have a place to promote their zany ideas.--Beguiled 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral problemed article which does not appear to have improved much since I last looked. Does have notability, but that isn't the sole requirement for existence of an article. Most likely should still be just inculded in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and not have a seperate article. The current article is mostly a technical explanation rather than a summary of the idea, and therefore is unencyclopedic. The article is also written much like a paper trying to justify a thesis rather than an encylopedia, which falls under the previously mentioned "unencyclopedic. This all can be improved, though I have serious doubts as to whether or not that will ever happen. --Wildnox(talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be reincluded in the root article because that is 112 kilobytes long when the maximum should be 30kb. This article itself is 70kb, rather than being deleted, it should be split in two. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Petri Krohn 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nonsense, possibly and probably yes, but notable and encyclopedic material.--Vintagekits 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I disagree with the hypothesis completely and have little understanding of the mindset that makes people believe this stuff. But the hypothesis is out there and the article makes an effort to provide nearly 100 sources, many of which are unaffiliated with the more wacko blogs of fellow conspiracy theorists. Alansohn 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Alansohn above. The editors of this article have done a lot of work to keep it NPOV and encyclopedic. -sthomson06 (Talk) 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - NPOV and encyclopedic. Stacks77 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I know that the basic premise is a lot of crap, and this has been repeatedly debunked, but it does adhere to WP:NPOV and notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Leave it in. RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, if only because it's a view held by a large number of people and is therefore notable. Personally I think the official story of 9/11 was a little far-fetched, but I also know that we'll never ever know for sure what actually happened. Deleting this article would be kind of like deleting the God article. --Jim (Talk) 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as we know September 11 was caused by elephants wanting to take revenge on their zookeeepers by hypnotizing some Arabians and making them take over a plane (don't ask me where I got that from). Now, we don't have an article on that, so Delete. (Also fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT. JorcogaYell! 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that your theory is as likely to be true as the one this article is about. However, we have no veriable sources that anyone actually supports your theory, while we do have verifiable sources that people support the boloney in this article. That is the difference and why your arguments for deletion are not valid. --Bduke 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Exactly. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of a single known truth - it operates on the basis of reporting verifyable facts. It is easily verifyable that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists include people who hold this opinion of what happened, and that they've written extensively about it. It's notable because enough people believe them. It would be neglegent of us not to report that people believe this, even if every single reasonable rational human being thinks that only crazy people think that way. We should (and do) report on the fringe opinions that we don't agree with; this is no exception. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question In what ways does the article fail WP:NOR and WP:NOT? One cannot just throw things like that into the pot. That is like saying "The sky is green" and not justifying it. If it fails these then I think the closing admin needs to know what you are referring to. Equally those editing the article deserve the chance to put that right. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Encyclopediac topic (if not air-headed, but that doesn't make it less so). F.F.McGurk 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable and notable nonsense. Gazpacho 19:07, 10 January 2007 (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.