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 delete. --Ezeu 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Original research, POV fork, indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion, redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 DCAnderson 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should't you have stated that this is a second nomination? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account. --LambiamTalk 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (2nd nomination)".--DCAnderson 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • or Weak MergeLooks like delete is not going to happen, but I'm willing to settle, as my main concern is that this shouldn't justify it's own article.--DCAnderson 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is this original research? —204.42.17.151 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe article is a POV fork attempting to avoid the scrutiny of the more heavily enforced 9/11 pages. It is also very indiscriminate in definition, as it means if you have questioned the 9/11 report at all you're automatically lumped in with the controlled demolitions and conspiracy theory loonies.--DCAnderson 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the POV? Can you answer that? -- noosphere 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page exists to show off how many people disagree with the official account. The POV is that there is something wrong with the official account. It's a fork because it is a POV seperated from the other 9/11 pages describing the official account.--DCAnderson 05:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the article express the POV that "there is something wrong with the offical account"? Listing those people that take such a stand doesn't mean Wikipedia is endorsing the stand itself. Otherwise we should delete the 9/11 Commission Report article itself as endorsing the POV that "there's nothing wrong with the official account", which is ridiculous. -- noosphere 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition of "POV fork" is the creation of a separate page solely to cover one viewpoint. There's a small section at WP:NPOV and a whole article at WP:POVFORK if you desire more information. jgp 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POVFORK says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." So, once again, I ask what POV does the article express? -- noosphere 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not indiscriminate. -- noosphere 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can we merge when these aren't researchers? -- noosphere 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot easier to judge whether someone is say "a christian" or "an anarchist" because they would refer to themselves as being members of these groups or ideoligies. This article is very vague, because as near as I can tell you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement".--DCAnderson 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not vague at all, since you've just stated the exact criteria for inclusion. You just have a problem with with those people being in the article, which is a different criticism than having a vague criteria for inclusion. -- noosphere 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are ideologies. Criticising the 9/11 Commision report is not an ideology. i.e. Anarchists and Christians share a set of world views and philosophies on life. Criticising something just means you expressed an opinion about one specific thing. This doesn't represent an all-encompassing view on the world.--DCAnderson 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you just lost me. Are you suggesting that only people expressing "all-encompassing views on the world" could be included in an article like this?
Also, you did not address my point, which was that the criteria for inclusion wasn't ambiguous since you yourself seemed to have no problem applying it when you said, "you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement"." That means that you know, unambiguously, when people fit in to this article (which isn't the Truth Movement, by the way... but the point holds for this article as well). -- noosphere 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems relatively reasonable. Only I would rename it to People who have criticized the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report or People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report, so that certain critics of this article don't get a bug in their butt about some of the people listed in this article not calling the report by name. And, maybe to make it even more obvious that they need not question every finding: People who have questioned one or more of the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report -- noosphere 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report would get my vote. Vizjim 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for a rename to People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report. but this article can not be merged into the researchers article, however, maybe that article can be merged into this one.--Striver 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But these aren't all researchers! That's the real problem with merging it in to an article on researchers/scholars. Some of the people here are neither. -- noosphere 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The researchers list is useless too, ditch it. Clarified my comment hopefully. Kotepho 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting that the researchers article should be merged in to this one? -- noosphere 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these lists was really merged in to 9/11 Commission Report I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I'd rather keep the article than delete it. -- noosphere 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But many of these aren't researchers. So they can't be merged in to an article on researchers. -- noosphere 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I meant by "vice versa". Merge the researchers into the people. The researchers are people, right? -- GWO
  • Delete per Kmf164--Bill 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, your addition came in between about twenty or more deletions of information by Tom harrison, and I intended to revert the deletions not your addition. I am actually all for adding details about why a given person questions the report. Reverting your addition was a mistake, and I've put it back in the article now. Sorry about that. -- noosphere 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we know that the information is misleading then we should not add it in the first place, or delete it. I think we can all agree about that. However, just because a quote could be taken out of context doesn't mean that we should not add information based on that quote.
We should create articles based on the best of our knowledge and not pussyfoot around living people just because they may, possibly not have meant something they said. But, of course, if there's evidence they didn't mean what they said by all means show us that evidence, and if it's valid then we'll remove that person from the list. -- noosphere 21:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the idea of explaining in what maner each person questionend the reportes finindings, i think ill start doing that, as soon as i take some time. No reason to delete the entire article.--Striver 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with this merge proposal.--Striver 08:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above anon user's first contribution[4].--DCAnderson 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote Noosphere, "WP:POVFORK says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." " —204.42.17.108 15:49, 27 May 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