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. W.marsh 17:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[edit]

This article was created after attempts to place this information in the article Collapse of the World Trade Center was met with much opposition. After the creation of this article, the creator then tried to merge the article into Collapse of the World Trade Center, placing merge tags on each one [1], [2]. The article is a bad faith attempt to supercede concensus and may be a partial copyvio from sections of [3]--MONGO 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No actually, this article was a long time coming. It is relevant and meets criteria for Wikipedia Policy. It is a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Whatever MONGO might think is another matter. I'm sure most will agree that the article stands fine on its own. If anyone is interested in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article controversy, I urge them to read this. Talk: Collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for delition at all. It meets every criteria for a Wikipedia article. Please do consult Talk: Collapse of the World Trade Center --EyesAllMine 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) And I will add, this is a political organisation, with people like Morgan Reynolds, Steven E. Jones, Robert Bowman and Andreas von Bülow among their members, who even though it is a "newborn" group, has already had the following articles written about it: "BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11" Deseret News, January 28, 2006, "Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax" Yahoo News, January 30, 2006, "9/11 ATTACKS, Avoiding the hard questions" Miami Herald, February 1, 2006, "Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says" Daily Herald, February 2, 2006, "Who wil save america" Counterpunch, February 6, 2006. --EyesAllMine 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also agree that it should be NPOV'ed and I just want to point that POV is never a reason to delete an article --EyesAllMine 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Pilatus 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the amount of material published on these events, and the number of theories presented, this is not a notable subject, and does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not spelling it out and bolding it, because this isn't a vote and my opinion is clear.[reply]

Wow. This is a narsty POV fork if I ever saw one. It has no place in Wikipedia, either. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm still bolding it and spelling it out, 'cause I know it's not a vote, but old habits die hard. :P [reply]

Delete Jcuk 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad faith attempts like this.Gator (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --rogerd 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad faith attempt to circumvent WP policies. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fallback mechanism for preventing the circumvention of WP policies (see WP:NPOV) Kevin Baas^talk 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a bad faith fork. You can't create another article to put your own spin on a topic. Well, back to work on the NoSeptember reveals the truth about the JFK assassination article ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bad faifth article. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of this duplicates material already in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is badly POV, and would need to be rewritten if it is to be kept (which I doubt, given the number of deletes above). However, we can verify the group exists (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), it has gained some notability by being in the news (9 hits on Google news [4]), and a number of the members (as noted above) are notable in their own right. For the record, I think the claims by this group are absurd. I don't think that should influence my thought on whether to keep or delete this article. If we can have articles on obscure Pokemon characters, certainly there's room for a controversial group that's been in the news and has notable people in it. Just clean it up, stick to facts, and remove the badly POV elements. --Durin 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Merge any extra information into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 and then redirect Avi 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork. Already covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth Movement, Steven E. Jones, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, and many other articles. Rhobite 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV conspiracy theorism at its finest.--Isotope23 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I disagree that POV is reason to delete; edit it. However, after being edited to make it NPOV it is no longer notable, so let's not bother. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are articles on other, fringe, political lobby groups. This should be rewritten into being NPOV. It is note-worthy, as they are challenging the norms of society in many respects. --GeLuxe 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything NPOV/useful and Redirect to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 as per Avi's suggestion. I don't see a lot there of use though. -- Mithent 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't seem to be redeemable from POV mania. Stifle 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally disagree with their opinions, interpretation, engineering, etc. However, no reason for WP to act like there aren't people out there who believe those things. Notable things can be consensus wrong, and still deserving of WP articles. NPOV improvements sounds like a good idea, though. Georgewilliamherbert 02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure I understand the grounds for deletion. If anything deleting it sounds like POV censorship. Sarge Baldy 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Info about this organisation deserve its own article. They have done significant scientific research that one day will complete our knowledge of what happened. A human 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Deletion attempts of this sort have certain parallels with Animal Farm, wherein Napoleon and Squealer are portrayed as pigs bent, among other things, on thwarting Snowball's attempt to teach others to read; this particular attempt is pure hogwash. Ombudsman 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Endorse "Keepers" above - esp. re POV censorship The Invisible Anon 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 81.129.89.243 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is this contributor's third edit:[5]--MONGO 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those who say that what's in the article is already covered elsewhere don't actually understand the relevance of the group or what is now going on because of this group. I have my own issues around it, but the information is not, and will not be, redundant. Bov 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This editor was solicited to vote on this:[6]--MONGO 03:43, 14 February 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.