Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 (2nd)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11

 * – (View AfD)

This is a list of persons and groups simply compiled here to give undue weight to conspiracy theories about 9/11. We have articles on most of these people and groups, so the same info can be in those articles.--MONGO 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks like a nice collection of all the info though. Corpx 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article has a large promotional component. It is a collection of people notable and otherwise who at one time or another said something that struck someone as challenging the "official" account of 9/11. As far as any of this material is encyclopedic, it should be presented in context on the subject's biography page, or in one of the many pages devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a well-compiled and well-sourced article. --JayJasper 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Conspiracy cruft covered elsewhere. Too much spamvertisement, too.  --Tbeatty 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article provides a useful supplement to the existing articles covering this subject. It's a fact-filled subject with a lot of involved parties, and this article assists readers by providing an easy reference to prominent names. __meco 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not fact filled, it's full of crank assertions. Nick mallory 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If we have articles on all these people, shouldn't it just be a category? I'd suggest delete and create a category for these folks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per JayJasper and _meco. --68.105.204.85 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Could be a category included in the articles about the individuals. Seems to restate what is said elsewhere and to serve as a linkfarm. Edison 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP - This article should definitely stay, freedom of press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temashana (talk • contribs)
 * — Temashana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not the press.  Someguy1221 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lumping groups and people together by the mere fact that they disagree with official statements is not encyclopedic.  How is this any different than a List of entities opposed to the Iraq War or People who agree with me anyway?  Would be an improper categorization as well.   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. Lists like these are too open for violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH and are difficult to maintain. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's unclear what constitutes 'challenging the official account' and worth including here; determining that gets into WP:SYNTH and other problems. WP:NOR often comes into play with this article, with quotes people say being cherry picked here and portraying the person as "challenging the official account".  WP:BLP may be an issue here, as well.  The article is too problematic and we would be better off without it. --Aude (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize per Edison. - Crockspot 04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above arguments. I'd like to add, should there be an article titled Celebrities who like chocolate.  What if they only like dark chocolate, and not milk chocolate?  What if they love chocolate cake, and chocolate flavored drinks, but can't stand to eat chocolate itself?  What constitutes truly liking chocolate?  I hope most of you understand my largely unecessary metaphore, which I have just more unecessarily pointed out...Someguy1221 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all your AfD's are belong to us. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Has been and always will be a place for original research, and by its very nature requires the editor to violate WP:SYNTH.  Where in the verifiable and reliable press do we see such a list that we could legitimately summarize here?  No where.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another Wikipedia article with no encylcopedic value that is designed to push the Truth Movement agenda.  I agree with the nominator that this article gives undue weight to conspiraciry theories.  The information in this article should be in the articles on each individual or group; this article is worthless.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Pablo, mention this on the individual articles.  Robbskey 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is just another attempt to peddle idiotic conspiracy theories and evade rational counter arguments. Nick mallory 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Good source for more realistic theories than official (and mostly secret) ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.198.0.103 (talk • contribs)
 * — 123.198.0.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, but this article is mostly propaganda and it would be futile, or at least enormously time-consuming, to try to make it NPOV. It has to go. It might be possible to devise a useful category for many of the people listed, but we would need to make it fairly narrow and make sure to only put people in it on the basis of their own self-identification. Since many of these people rely heavily on the "I'm only asking questions" cop-out, that would be tricky. CWC 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aude.--Dcooper 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 9/11 conspiracy theories phenomenon has substantial coverage in other articles already, and the people involved are already categorised at Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11. Sandstein 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an indiscriminate list that duplicates the above mentioned category. Plus it is highly POV.  --rogerd 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete already covered by cat. Slavlin 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The cat covers this already. Realkyhick 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have a category, this is a soapbox list which will attract OR and POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This piece is huge and unwieldly, not to mention wildly speculative. While it is important to allow people to express their opinions about this sort of thing, Wikipedia already has two articles like this: 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Truth Movement.  b w o w e n  T / C  03:13, 19 May 2007 (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.