Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Silverstein's Comments On WTC Building 7 Collapse


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein's Comments On WTC Building 7 Collapse
POV fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The guidelines on forking say that '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.' If some account of the record of vandalism behind the creation of this article could be provided it would be helpful in assessing the AfD. I suspect that the real question here is whether this is a notable item not sufficiently dealt with elsewhere. If it were renamed "Pull it" it could be compared with an article like Let's roll to assess its notability.--Thomas Basboll 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem renaming the article to "Pull It" or something like that. The reason I think keeping the content is important is because the debate concerning whether pull meant "pull out the firefighters" or "pull down the building" is captured in this article.  I'm pretty sure if we lose this information then the debate will once more rear its ugly head as it did in the main article a few weeks ago.  Nay-sayers on Yay-sayers will retread old ground.  I think having it as a reference and perhaps the battleground for additional debate is pretty important.  And separating it from the main article will prevent too much minutiae being discussed in what should be a general overview. --Demosfoni 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Info: This material is part of the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article.--Thomas Basboll 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article's contents are already at Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center; no need for a separate article to house a copy of the same material. Also, there's no chance that any user would ever come to Wikipedia and run a search for an article called "Larry Silverstein's Comments On WTC Building 7 Collapse". --Aaron 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron. When will the conspiracy theory advocacy movement on Wikipedia end?  Morton devonshire 23:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles on things covered by notable sources are not advocacy, its making articles based on factual RS info. I begin to suspect the real purpose behind the vehemence is the fact that it is no secret that a Wikipedia article draws attention (re: google), and people would rather not allow such things to exist here for such reasons alone. Control of information. · XP  · 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron GabrielF 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not worthy of separate article. Sandy 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron. (Is there an echo in here?) Erechtheus 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Notable info to keep per international media coverage (US centric view is irrelevant). · XP  · 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Outside of the Loose Change and conspiracy crowd, these two words "pull it" that Larry Silverstein uttered in a 2002 PBS documentary are NOT notable. He was recounting the events of the day on 9/11, and a conversation he had that afternoon with the New York City Fire Department.  Aside from the lack of notability of "pull it", it is excessive to have this discussed in three articles (this one, the controlled demolition article, which is a fork/subarticle of 9/11 conspiracy theories which also mentions "pull it").  It would be an arduous task to keep these three articles saying the same consistent thing about "pull it", and keep them WP:NPOV. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "pull it" is also and obscure term of art used by demolitionists. Silverstein is not a demolitionist.  It is not clear how or why he would be using demolitionist terms.  --Tbeatty 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot that "pull it" is also very briefly mentioned in the Larry Silverstein article. So, this would be the fourth article that mentions "pull it". And, they have tried to put "pull it" into the 7 World Trade Center article, as well. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This nonsense is already covered on too many other articles. --Tbeatty 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the edit summary at creation: "(Need this stuff for future arguments and reference)". Wikipedia is not the place for somebody's personal debate crib sheet and/or method of proof. While it may be convenient for the creator to have an article restating what is already said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not his personal storage resource. Erechtheus 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron. Crockspot 01:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. All relevent information already in one or more of the existing articles.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is already covered in enough depth according to the undue weight clause of NPOV on other articles.--MONGO 05:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron and MONGO. alpha Chimp (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, conspiracycruft and redundant per Larry Silverstein. Guy 10:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aaron and Aude. CWC (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant PoV fork and 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are spiraling out of control.--Rosicrucian 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, silly attempt to argue that up is down. Gazpacho 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Protect or Userfy, As I mentioned above, this article was created by nay-sayers and yea-sayers alike. I organized into pro and con sections.  I'm pretty sure if it gets deleted it's going to be recreated by someone else who thinks the topic has not gotten enough coverage in Wiki.  I wouldn't mind keeping in on my home page if it is that obhorrent to the crowd. --Demosfoni 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see that it still exists in the Controlled Demolition section. I really don't think it belongs under controlled demolition since it is its own topic: it involves the admittance by the buildings owner that building 7 was "pulled".  BTW, I noticed that if you type "controlled demolition wtc" in the search engine you don't even get the "controlled demolition hypothesis of the world trade center buildings" page. --Demosfoni 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too much info, we do not need a whole encyclopedia on some guy's offhand remark. Herostratus 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A bit extreme to have an article dedicated to two words. Merge not needed as it is already mentioned elsewhere.  Sparkhead  21:07, 28 September 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.