Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull it


 * 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 Deleted by Enochlau as db-author. -- JLaTondre 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pull it
This is not an article. It's just a comment made by the leaser of the World Trade Center building number 7. The term "pull it' is not used by the controlled demolition industry, as this "article" would like you to believe. We already have an article on the person who stated this at Larry Silverstein, so this is not only a non article, but a POV fork as well. Delete.--MONGO 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The term is real, see the section "Notice how a lot of other references where the word "pull" is being used to describe the demolishing of buildings:" here . --Striver 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether the term is 'real' or imagined, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Bucketsofg 14:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Phrase is common to many occupations, does not require explanation. —Chris Chittleborough 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a dictionary. JPD (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bucketsofg. What a strange article!  But alas, "pull it" can be used in a virtually limitless number of contexts.   Starry Eyes  14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and send it over to Wiktionary, see how they feel about it. --Deville (Talk) 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the article quotes the sentence "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Maybe we should use the sentence as an example in Hello, Oh, we're, getting, ready, to, pull, building and six? There has to be some way to include 9/11 conspiracy theories in every article on Wikipedia! :-) Weregerbil 15:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We could always create Category:Articles that lack 9/11 conspiracy theories. Believe me, it won't even be ten percent of the size of Category:Living people.   Starry Eyes  15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, here it is: Category:Articles lacking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Start putting things in! Weregerbil 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean Category:Articles requiring attention because they lack 9/11 conspiracy theories? --Deville (Talk) 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --mtz206 15:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 15:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. Aside from the POV connotations mentioned above, Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, and not a repository for quotes (not cited from Reliable sources) either.. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Mmx1 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 16:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as WP:WINAD and WP:POVFORK. Esquizombi 18:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Expect the systematic keep votes to try and get a nonconsensus after the user lists this on his personal Wikiproject subpage.--Jersey Devil 19:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to wiktionary as one definition or use of "pull".--Rockero 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, created to advance a specific 9/11 POV. Rhobite 00:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as brain-dead conspiracy theorizing based on a mishearing of "pull out"; as in "remove personnel from a building likely to collapse soon", a more likely explanation of the term considering the large numbers of people killed earlier in the day in collapsing buildings when no pullout order was given. ProhibitOnions 01:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no people there to "pull out", they where all evacuated already, firefighters included. I taged the article for speedie delete.--Striver 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but he was speaking spontaneously and wasn't making much sense anyway. The whole conspiracy theory depends on Silverstein revealing the plot in public once and then never mentioning it again. Thanks for the speedy tag. ProhibitOnions 10:19, 25 March 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.