Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. --Ezeu 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report


Original research, POV fork, indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion, redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 DCAnderson 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Should't you have stated that this is a second nomination? See Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account. --Lambiam Talk 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Title is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (2nd nomination)".--DCAnderson 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per my original nom.--DCAnderson 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * or Weak MergeLooks like delete is not going to happen, but I'm willing to settle, as my main concern is that this shouldn't justify it's own article.--DCAnderson 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is this original research? &mdash;204.42.17.151 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Oh, come on... not again. As I said on the article's talk page when this was proded eight hours ago, these reasons for deletion don't hold water.  1 - "original research" - If the claims are properly cited then it's not original research.  Since we have the citations for the people being kept on this list it's not original research.  It's as simple as that. 2 - "POV" - What POV?  How is the article expressing a POV by listing those who question the report?  It's not. 3 -"redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11" - The people listed on this page need not be part of the Truth Movement, need not be scholars or reaserachers.  So how is it redundant?  This is a much more inclusive list, therefore it doesn't fulfill the functions of more specialized lists. 4 - "vague requirements for inclusion" - If people question the report they're in.  What's vague about that?  -- noosph e re 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe article is a POV fork attempting to avoid the scrutiny of the more heavily enforced 9/11 pages. It is also very indiscriminate in definition, as it means if you have questioned the 9/11 report at all you're automatically lumped in with the controlled demolitions and conspiracy theory loonies.--DCAnderson 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the POV? Can you answer that?  -- noosph e re 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The page exists to show off how many people disagree with the official account. The POV is that there is something wrong with the official account. It's a fork because it is a POV seperated from the other 9/11 pages describing the official account.--DCAnderson 05:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does the article express the POV that "there is something wrong with the offical account"? Listing those people that take such a stand doesn't mean Wikipedia is endorsing the stand itself.  Otherwise we should delete the 9/11 Commission Report article itself as endorsing the POV that "there's nothing wrong with the official account", which is ridiculous.  -- noosph e re 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition of "POV fork" is the creation of a separate page solely to cover one viewpoint. There's a small section at WP:NPOV and a whole article at WP:POVFORK if you desire more information. jgp 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK says, "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. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." So, once again, I ask what POV does the article express?  -- noosph e re 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV fork. Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is enough. Dr Zak 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What point of view does this article express? Where and how does it do so?  And why must Wikipedia limit itself only to reasearchers questioning 9/11 when there are plenty of other people doing so? -- noosph e re 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentWikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--DCAnderson 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is not indiscriminate. -- noosph e re 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, or vice versa. -- GWO
 * How can we merge when these aren't researchers? -- noosph e re 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No vote yet. Question: can you answer the assertion that the article is an "indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion"?  Because it seems like one to me.  I'm satisifed, however, that this is not original research (fully verified and sourced throughout), it does not push a particular POV within the article, and I can understand that there is a difference between the pressure group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, professional researchers working full-time on their particular conspiracy theory, and this grouping of random individuals worldwide who have questioned the 9/11 events. Vizjim 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per every single word writen by Noosphere, im feel really happy that there are people who what to defend wikipedia from this kind of afd. Keep up the good work! As for "indiscriminate collection", it is not. Ther are "researchers" that question. A researcher researchs new facts. Ordianry people only agree with the facts researched. See list of christians, List of humanists, List of transhumanists, List of anarchists, List of communists and List of people by belief. Any more questions? There is not a single valid reason to delete this. --Striver 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a lot easier to judge whether someone is say "a christian" or "an anarchist" because they would refer to themselves as being members of these groups or ideoligies. This article is very vague, because as near as I can tell you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement".--DCAnderson 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So it's not vague at all, since you've just stated the exact criteria for inclusion. You just have a problem with with those people being in the article, which is a different criticism than having a vague criteria for inclusion.  -- noosph e re 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are ideologies. Criticising the 9/11 Commision report is not an ideology. i.e. Anarchists and Christians share a set of world views and philosophies on life. Criticising something just means you expressed an opinion about one specific thing. This doesn't represent an all-encompassing view on the world.--DCAnderson 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you just lost me. Are you suggesting that only people expressing "all-encompassing views on the world" could be included in an article like this?


 * Also, you did not address my point, which was that the criteria for inclusion wasn't ambiguous since you yourself seemed to have no problem applying it when you said, "you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement"." That means that you know, unambiguously, when people fit in to this article (which isn't the Truth Movement, by the way... but the point holds for this article as well).  -- noosph e re 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11--MONGO 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. More original research based on conspiracy theorists. Capitalistroadster 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge this page with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where a lot of this page's content is duplicated anyway. Rename the resulting page People who have criticised the 9/11 Commission Report.  One of the problems I have with this page is its use of the present tense - implying that all of the people listed on it continue unchangingly with their beliefs, whereas some of these appear to be rather off-the-cuff or done for satirical purposes.  I think that the divide these articles make between "researchers" and "other people" is largely false, and that it would be better to collect all this data in one place.  The suggested route ensures that no information is lost on Wikipedia. Vizjim 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems relatively reasonable. Only I would rename it to People who have criticized the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report or People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report, so that certain critics of this article don't get a bug in their butt about some of the people listed in this article not calling the report by name.  And, maybe to make it even more obvious that they need not question every finding: People who have questioned one or more of the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report  -- noosph e re 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report would get my vote. Vizjim 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for a rename to People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report. but this article can not be merged into the researchers article, however, maybe that article can be merged into this one.--Striver 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * SMerge along with Researchers into Criticisms and/or 9/11 Commission Report after taking a nice whack out of it with WP:RS. Why is this spread out over 4 crappy articles when it could be one/two decent one(s)? Kotepho 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But these aren't all researchers! That's the real problem with merging it in to an article on researchers/scholars.  Some of the people here are neither.  -- noosph e re 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The researchers list is useless too, ditch it. Clarified my comment hopefully. Kotepho 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that the researchers article should be merged in to this one? -- noosph e re 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report + Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 + Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report + 9/11 Commission Report = 9/11 Commission Report, with maybe Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report as a summarry=>main. Researchers might need to be merged a few other places too. Kotepho 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If these lists was really merged in to 9/11 Commission Report I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I'd rather keep the article than delete it.  -- noosph e re 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. --Bill 15:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But many of these aren't researchers. So they can't be merged in to an article on researchers.  -- noosph e re 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by "vice versa". Merge the researchers into the people.  The researchers are people, right? -- GWO
 * Delete per Kmf164--Bill 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. Kukini 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * SMerge into 9/11_Commission_Report, to the extent it meets WP:RS. (Researchers is plausible, but I think the report article, itself, should include the critism.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge into 9/11 Commission Report per Arthur Rubin. jgp 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:BALLS.  Morton devonshire 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT it's not the article that this refers to, it's wikipedia itself.  I guess I'm just generally opposed to lists; that's what categories are for.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. For several reason:
 * A list isn't a great format for explaining the nature of the "questioning" each person listed has. This would need to be done for each entry, as I recently tried to do for one, Louis Freeh. I added some explanation as to why he was "questioning the 9/11 Commission Report"  (he was critical of the 9/11 Commission for not addressing Able Danger), and it was subsequently reverted  by User:Noosphere.
 * Just to clarify, your addition came in between about twenty or more deletions of information by Tom harrison, and I intended to revert the deletions not your addition. I am actually all for adding details about why a given person questions the report.  Reverting your addition was a mistake, and I've put it back in the article now.  Sorry about that.  -- noosph e re 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article presents serious problems with WP:V, and WP:RS. Even the mainstream media has problems with cherry-picking quotes from what people say, and out of context they can imply something different than what the person really intended and not capture nuanced views well. This issue of cherry-picking, misinterpretations, and misrepresentation is all the more serious with sources used in this article, such as prisonplanet.
 * Some users have attempted to clean up this article, but nonetheless its daunting and a problematic article for Wikipedia. Maintaining this article requires extreme due diligence, as these are all Living people; I'm concerned a list like this may misrepresent some people's viewpoints, or mistakenly include people.  Should these very people see this page, there is potential for causing another controversy and embarassment for Wikipedia (e.g. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy).
 * In light of a recent message from Jimmy Wales on the enwiki mailing list, he strongly suggested a preference for "Zero information preferred to misleading or false information".  This article is a perfect case, for where this should apply. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If we know that the information is misleading then we should not add it in the first place, or delete it. I think we can all agree about that.  However, just because a quote could be taken out of context doesn't mean that we should not add information based on that quote.


 * We should create articles based on the best of our knowledge and not pussyfoot around living people just because they may, possibly not have meant something they said. But, of course, if there's evidence they didn't mean what they said by all means show us that evidence, and if it's valid then we'll remove that person from the list.  -- noosph e re 21:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea of explaining in what maner each person questionend the reportes finindings, i think ill start doing that, as soon as i take some time. No reason to delete the entire article.--Striver 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete the article has been an owned article for a long time. Furthermore, it is a fork as mentioned above.--Jersey Devil 21:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RexNL 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete as per nom. --Strothra 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this is a POV fork, refuge for conspiracy theories, endless and pointless listcruft. Many on the list don't belong, or are there because once upon a time they were cited saying 'something' negative about the commission - in other words, this could be a list of anyone. Bridesmill 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge entries for which reliable sources can be found with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, then rename to People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report or similar per Vizjim's comments. There's no reason for these articles to be split, especially since the Researchers article already contains this section of "other notable people" that is more fleshed out then anything in the People article. BryanG 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I could agree with this merge proposal.--Striver 08:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is a POV fork.--Aldux 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep list of moonbats useful for knowing whom not to cite as a reliable source in any other 9/11 article. Thatcher131 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per BryanG, others. - CNichols 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or at worst merge per above. 1652186 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * delete - I concur with the above sentiments; not appropriate as its own wiki entry/article in this instance. Jhamez84 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge the rest of these 911 conspiracy theories into one article. THE KING 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete conspiracy cruft.  Grue   07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Noosphere.--Pokipsy76 09:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Noosphere and others opposing. Every legitimate criticism can be fixed in the article and most of the criticisms are hypothetical. &mdash;204.42.17.108 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Above anon user's first contribution.--DCAnderson 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete, this is a POV fork. San Saba 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote Noosphere, "WP:POVFORK says, "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. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." " &mdash;204.42.17.108 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least clean up and merge with something else. Preferably delete, but if it's decided that it should be kept... --Flyne 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete conspiracytheorycruft. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork, non-notable conspiracy nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 12:15, 29 May 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.