Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 conspiracy theories


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn; speedily kept. DarthVad e r 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories
I find that this article violates three conditions of what Wikipedia is. A soapbox, a publisher of original thought, and a crystal ball. SweetNeo85 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * reluctant keep, but the article needs a strict purge of all primary source-based information. --Mmx1 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * sight... lets pretend that there is not a sig... never mind, i dont even know why i bother... --Striver 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, existence of many conspiracy theories is easily verified. Clean it up and put an editor advisory at the top. Gazpacho 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. We are working on it.--Thomas Basboll 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ^Good enough for me.--SweetNeo85 00:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep despite being a haven for POV pushers, that is no reason to delete a page. Article subject is notable.--Jersey Devil 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per several above Tom Harrison Talk 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above rootology (T) 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So... was this a serious AFD nomination or a WP:POINT vio? SkeenaR 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nom has <500 edits and only started to edit 9/11 pages in the last few days; I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. --Mmx1 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Neo, maybe before an afd, check out the discussion page, or even the archives, especially if you are not all that familiar with the article. Improvements can be slow to come, but if you feel like you can make some positive changes to the article, you probably can. SkeenaR 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that the article was a hodgepodge of speculation and POV. In retrospect, it probably would have been wiser to clean it up rather than afd it, as there is obviously some historical significance to the article.  It should really read more like a history page though, because none of the theories are widely accepted.--SweetNeo85 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In "theory" what we want is an article that actually describes what the theories are:"so-and-so thinks the towers were demolished", "buddy thinks these guys have responsibility" etc, etc. Then it gets harder for people to agree whether the article is NPOV after the basis for the theories are added. I think that is the part where most of the disagreements come in. I'm not sure if it's a correctable problem or not. It should be moved back to the discussion page though. I think you are right that there is too much hodgepodge. SkeenaR 05:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  Keep. Deleting of this article would allow the 'conspiracy theorists' to add Wikepedia to their list of conspirators. I agree that much of the content comprises theories which, in principle, violate NPOV but, as briefly discussed by SkeenaR, any editing which endevours to specify that content xxx is theory would be, in itself, open to long argument as to the NPOV of the editing. Thus I suggest it is best to leave the article open to general editing so that Wikipedia [as a whole]is seen to be maintaining a NPOV.Geoffrey Wickham 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does not violate NPOV to state a theory. But according to policy here, it would violate NPOV to state that a theory was verifiable fact, or that it had been proven false, without a reliable source. One thing that should be irrelevant with regard to editing, at least in my opinion, is whether or not external sources think Wikipedia is neutral based on their "feelings" toward the material. Verifiability is the key to an encyclopedia article, regardless of whose sensibilities may be offended. SkeenaR 06:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for reasons stated above. The nomination has effectively been withdrawn, so any passing admin should be able to close this discussion per WP:SK.--Kchase T 07:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP It's a theory and people have the right to express and know different points of view. 07:52, 12 August 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.