Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel


 * 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 speedy delete all. --MONGO 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Pentagon, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Flight 93, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers
Unnecessary POV forking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rory096 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 131.111.48.158 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC) djcmackay
 * What does a physical analysis of the pentagon crash site, and a comparison with the physical dimensions of a 757, have to do with anti-semitism?rich 12:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP the Flight 93 one, at least -- there are definitely historical facts that need recording (such as allegations of significant discrepancies about time of crash)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Deltabeignet 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - a lot of it looks like a copy/paste. If the main article becomes so large that it needs to be split up, ok, fine, but just copying/pasting a section into a new article and changing a few things doesn't really help. BigDT 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure it does - that's how it works. You copy/paste a section into a new article, then put "Main Article: XXX" where the old section was and drastically condense what was there.  --Hyperbole 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as fork. Rather interesting that the next article listed is about Kooks. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * lmfao! --Rory096 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all - these aren't POV forks at all; they're forks for the purpose of splitting up an overlong article. That's standard Wikipedia practice.  9/11 conspiracy theories was becoming utterly bloated and unruly, and this is the logical solution.  Sort of how like Jesus forks into Chronology of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, Genealogy of Jesus, and about 20 other pages - too much information for one page.  --Hyperbole 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - ok - if that's the case, that's fine, but a user who has no other contributions created all of the new articles, copied the content, and blanked the sections he copied, replacing them with links to the new articles. Rory096 immediately reverted his blanking.  There is no discussion on the talk page about the split. If that's really the intent, ok, fine, but there's no evidence of any attempt to gain a consensus or at least let everyone know what was going on. BigDT 08:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Forked or not, they're unencyclopedic nonsense. I suppose I should mirror the whole Enterprise Mission site here as NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Face on Mars, NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Cities on Mars, NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Alien Bases on the Moon, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page is only going to keep coming back and getting re-created. The content conforms to Verifiability guidelines, by being based upon multiple written external sources. The main 9/11 conspiracy page is now an accepted part of the WIKIPEDIA, and at over 100kb, was FAR TOO LONG. A concensus was arrived at that the main page was too long, and the creation of sub pages is in accordance with the ALREADY ESTABLISHED CONCENSUS ON THIS MATTER. Above comments are clearly in error, and seem to border on the hysterical. Timharwoodx 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - can you provide a diff on the discussion page where splitting was discussed? Obviously, it needs to be done ... so you're probably right and this is moot anyway BigDT 09:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_7 seems to be the most relevant. There's similar discussions throughout the archives, though, for various other splitting schemes. – Zawersh 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a ringing endorsement ... but whatever ... at most it's a content dispute ... no real point to argue about it here Speedy keep BigDT 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the opposite of an endorsement. Not a single person supported the split in that particular discussion. I'm confused... since nobody supported the split there, and few supported similar splits elsewhere (that I saw, anyway), why is that your justification for a speedy keep? The original article isn't up for deletion, just the split offs. – Zawersh 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Skimming through the talk archives, there appears to be no consensus for splitting. My impression was that more people wanted the article to be editted down to a smaller size. If it's to be split, it should be with consensus. – Zawersh 09:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. We now have a page. Timharwoodx 09:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Restore to original article. If the page is becoming unruly, tidy it up. Don't just be information agglomerators, be real editors, and EDIT. -- GWO
 * Exactly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, it needs the headings splitting off into sub pages. Thats all this is about. An overly long page, that needs subdivision. 98 kilobytes is an absurd size, and vastly exceeds the Article_size guidelines, which give 20-32 kilobytes as the range to begin to consider subdivision. So logically, following the WIKI rules, AT LEAST 3 sub pages are required, and possibly 5. I don't understand why there has to be so much discussion about something, that is just the application of standing WIKI style guidelines. If this was any other topic than 9/11, it would have been done MONTHS ago. Timharwoodx 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the same thing could be said about this afd. Don't just be deleters, be real editors and EDIT. -- MisterHand 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories is insanely long and out of control. I'm not sure why so many people think that's a good thing. -- MisterHand 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete until decisions have been made on which sections stay or go in the original article. SkeenaR 10:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not 100's of opinions and theories.-- A n d e h 11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapox. Systemic bias, conspiracycruft is greatly out of proportion to its importance. This kind of stuff just hurts Wikipedia. Weregerbil 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Much of this material is only supported by citation to primary sources - the conspiracist websites themselves. There is not at this time enough secondary source material to support independent articles. There is barely enough to support one main article; the reason it's so long is every theorist with a website wants his link and a promotional paragraph. There was certainly no consensus on the talk page to do this. Tom Harrison Talk 12:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, but Keep 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers / Controlled demolition conspiracy theories, as it is a much needed daughter article to make 9/11 conspiracy theories conform to Summary style.--DCAnderson 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Controlled demolition conspiracy theories was as bad a title as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers. A better title would be 9/11 Conspiracy Theories/controlled demolition. For the moment I have moved it back to its original title and also merged in 9/11 conspiracy theories WTC - a repost of the article. -- RHaworth 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Who decided to split the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? ILovePlankton 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Weregerbil and Tom Harrison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the articles are not written from a neutral point of view, or contain unverifiable statements, these need to be edited into conformance. But there is nothing wrong with reporting in a neutral voice on verifiably existing conspiracy theories. Some of the arguments given for deletion apply equally to the featured article Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Lambiam Talk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Hyperbole, Timharwoodx, BigDT, and MisterHand. &mdash;204.42.21.174 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Don't need more than one article on the subject.-- A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if this isn't prejudiced, then I certainly don't know what is. --Bill (who is cool!) 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if there is consensus on the original article's talk page for splitting, OK. Just doing it is a bit too bold, IMHO. Lundse 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely unnecessary splitting, a dumping ground for amateurish tinfoil-hat blog links.  Raggaga 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, PLEASE! What, pray tell, is the purpose of this article? The second paragraph says, "These statements are contradicted by the preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reporting an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building."  Then one can sum up the whole article thus: "Even though everyone who was there says otherwise, a few people on the Internet who weren't actually there think this happened..."  Casting legitimacy on this is like casting legitimacy on Paul McCartney actually being dead.  As Weregerbil notes, this sort of content only hurts Wikipedia.  (On a personal note, not to be thought of as part of my voting rationale, a member of my immediate family was in Washington that day and saw the plane hit the Pentagon with her own eyes.  Make of that what you will.)  Starry  Eyes  00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The main conspiracies article is far too long. These sub-articles pack just the right punch. You can read one then, when you've stopped laughing twenty minutes later, read another. What the main article needs is for a bunch of guys to take matters into their own hands and trim it. --die Baumfabrik 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. As stated above "Forked or not, they're unencyclopedic nonsense." Brimba 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete all -- disgusting bit of anti-Semitism. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS.   Morton devonshire 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This vote isn't whether the 9/11 conspiracy theories page itself should exist; it's not being voted on for an AfD here. The subpages were created as a result of forking a large page into separate subpages when it gets too large; this is a standard Wikipedia practice.  Based on that, it's not really a question at significant issue. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE  (why?) &dArr;  18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WCityMike. The 9/11 conspiracy theories page is becoming very long. --Zoz (t) 20:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. These articles are used to serve the purpose of cutting down the length of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page.  Also if you look at the main page, nearly all of the comments are supported and verifiable according to wikipedia guidelines.MBob 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: all theories are verifiably presented by notable individuals. Wikipedia is not the place to judge whether the theories are reasonable or not. Calwatch 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all Forks due to main article length. - CNichols 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a good start at problems with article length would be adherence to Wikipedia policies, notably reliable sources. A lot of the articles are regurgitations of self-appointed "researchers'" blogs and other self-published sources. While I appreciate the stupidity displayed in those blog entries to demonstrate the weakness of the conspiracy theorists' arguments the articles are unencyclopedic messes. Splitting them up so we can pile more junk on top of junk isn't helpful. Weregerbil 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete conspiracy cruft.  Grue   14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a POV fork, but a spinoff article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP These articles have just as much of a right to be here as any. These are not POV, they are debated facts. You cannot keep articles such as Elvis sightings, Kennedy assassination theories, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Illuminati, and Majestic 12 and delete these simply because they are very controversial. Keep them. Andy Filth 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all and edit the main 9/11 conspiracies article more concisely MLA 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted these blatent POV fork articles as they violate numerous arguments on discussion pages and they were all created by a sockpuppet of someone...once I figure out who I suspect, I'll take the evidence to RCU.--MONGO 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.