Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Bad faith article created as POV fork. The single "scientific study" it uses as its main crutch of notability is not peer-reviewed. Reads like an advertisement for the POV inof as an encyclopedic article. Only one internal wikilinks other than to talk pages and previous AfD. (First nomination closed without consensus.) Aaron 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Last AfD closed nine days ago. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: From WP:DP: There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated. --Aaron 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But you'll very rarely get a good reaction by renominating something so soon. Lack of explicit policy does not equal explicit encouragement. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would not have renominated this so soon had the first nomination resulted in a "keep" consensus, but with no consensus at all, I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to give it another go, where presumably a somewhat different group of editors would participate in the debate. (For the record, I did not participate in the original nomination, and indeed was unaware it had even taken place until I read the article's talk page a few hours ago.) --Aaron 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait... you didn't look at the talk page before you AfD'ed it? Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is not what I said; you're misreading my statement. All I meant was that I had not been following this article at all until a few hours before I made this nomination; I wanted to make clear to everyone that I had absolutely zero involvement in its first nomination or any discussion leading up to said first nomination. I most certainly read its talk page before AfDing it; how else would I have even known there had been a first nomination? --Aaron 01:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep welcome to censure land... --Striver 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep there was an excellent article about how "fringe" these issues really are in the San Francisco Weekly about a year ago. --Pansophia 03:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as before...this is a advertisment for a heavily POV and inaccurate website built on falicies and misrepresentation of evidence...POV push for sure.--MONGO 20:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete/Rewrite . Unable to breathe because of massive POV being crammed down my throat. I am astounded that the page provides a miniature biography of everyone involved with the project in order to maintain a semblance of credibility. See parallel at Manhattan Project, which was able to incorporate the contributions of many experts and high-level academics in a way that doesn't read like an advertising pamphlet. Isopropyl 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to Merge as a comporomise. There are a couple candidate articles: 9/11 conspiracy theories as well as researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Isopropyl 22:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What Pov? Could you quote it? I dont see any POV. Only NPOV statmensts like:
 * The group believes that the investigations...
 * According to their website they "...
 * Their conclusion is based on...
 * These experts contend that the official version...
 * They believe that the...
 * It doesnt get more NPOV than that :) --Striver 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please see weasel word, Avoid weasel words, WP:NPOV, Content forking, among others. Isopropyl 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sriver's examples aren't weasel words...they attribute specific positions to a specific source, the very opposite of weasel words. Babajobu 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete Merge to researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 (per Isopropyl). Notability is marginal, and would seem to stem from the membership rather than the accomplishments of the group. Voting delete because information about this group would be more encyclopedic as a single link from a more general article on independent reviews of the events of 9/11. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be much that can be said about this subject without resorting to POV, Original Research, or Weasel Words. --Dystopos 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep as premature nomination of nominally notable group. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy keep: An unfortunate serial AfD attempt; distracts from actually building an encyclopedia; disruptive at best.  Ombudsman 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me also remind the jury that this information is available with much less filler and many fewer calories at researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Consider the implications of a content/POV fork. Isopropyl 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We looked at that in the AfD which completed a few days ago, and concluded that the fork issue wasn't fatal. Nothing has changed of note in the last ten days.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This group contains very notable people. I don't know the notability guidelines for groups containing very notable people that have not performed notably as a group, so I assume, based on personal judgment, that the group passes the notability criterion. This article is distinct from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Assert importance. How has this group affected society, or otherwise made an impact on the world? The opening sentence says nothing.  Cdcon   21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice find, Isopropyl. I didn't even know that article existed. That would be a perfect place for this article. I change vote to Merge into researchers questioning the official account of 9/11.  Cdcon   21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP - Look, I know why people want to delete this. The viewpoints these people represent are, in my opinion, fringe, crank, conspiracy theory types of views.  And their science is junk in my opinion (and i've done point by point rebuttals of some of their "science papers" before).  This article does not exist because it's factually correct history or science.  This article exists because it is notable that a large number of people legitimately and truthfully believe the things documented here.  That large number of people may be a small fraction of the total population, but it's a real and valid part of our society and history, as much as UFO enthusiasts or Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy enthusiasts, etc.  There's nothing wrong with adding more NPOV regarding the verifyable and referenceable accuracy of claims made on the page, but deleting it because we disagree with them is wrong.  Knock it off.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would agree with you if these comments were in reference to 9/11_conspiracy_theories. Please do not immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Isopropyl 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Duplicates material already on researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, and other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont get this, who come we have a million pokemon, magic the gathering and lego article, but we cant have more than seven-eight 9/11 sceptic articles? --Striver 22:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The community of Wikipedians have many virtues, among which consistent application of notability guidelines is glaringly absent. The de facto precedent set by the fanboy backwater of the community need not impel us to proliferate articles on this topic. The point is that this group — whose only notable publication so far is a press release calling for more investigation — has given us nothing verifiable to say that can't be said in the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article. --Dystopos 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Prof. Jones, who is clearly notable as having authored the detailed and peer-reviewed study, founded the group. He has other people agreeing with him, who are at least semi-notable, as group members.
 * We could combine all the 9/11 conspiracy articles into one if we wanted to, but I don't see why. There are variations and particular points of some of these groups, and separate articles seem appropriate; one article adequately and accurately reporting on the diversity of beliefs seems difficult.  Unless your argument is that we should combine them all, then this article is IMHO sufficiently notable that it should remain separate.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Cite, please, that Jones's article has been peer-reviewed? --Aaron 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true, they have made mutliple press releases and statements, but i guess that is hard to know witout fully reading the article, isnt it?--Striver 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. In order to make a point, it appears that someone has added every single work the group has ever published to the page. Please see WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a battleground, soapbox, or collection of external links. Isopropyl 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT more than the others, I think. However, Striver's point is that the group is active in the real world and getting press coverage in the real world.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken (excuse the pun!). However, evidence of credibility is probably better added to this discussion, or the article's talk page. 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The website lists three peer-reviewed papers, of which none are authored by the group, but by persons who, with one exception, already have articles on Wikipedia detailing the variations and particular points of their research. For what it's worth, none of these have actually been published and only Fetzer's is scheduled to appear in a reviewed journal. Perhaps an article on Fetzer would be more productive than further accusations here? --Dystopos 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding the opposition to merge, as "one article adequately and accurately reporting on the diversity of beliefs seems difficult", please see a parallel at pro-life, where it has been done successfully. Isopropyl 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion attempt is bogus, has nothing to do with notability or NPOV issues. SkeenaR 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Closing admin please note that the above "keep" vote was solicited. --Aaron 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please notice I voted on the problem reaction solution article before the above linked comment was added to my talk page. I was aware of the deletion proposal already and would have voted anyway. SkeenaR 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Isopropyl for little substantial content. Sandstein 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sure last AfD was nine days ago, but the group still only gets 181 unique Googles, which is about what I get and I am not claiming to be notable. Isopropyl's argument is also valid. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your count is based on a common but inaccurate reading of Google results. When Google snips all results above a certain number, it does not mean that the rest are duplicates. Note also that Microsoft gets only 500 or so "unique" hits by this reading. There is no search term anywhere that would not get hits in the three-digits this way. I see this cited a lot, and I know you're doing it in good faith, but it's just not correct. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep' - 56,200 result at Google search. A human 00:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you mean 51,900 when you said 181.

As of 2006-02-26, a "news.google.com" search gave 29 hits on the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" searchstring --Striver 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Does this group have one identifiable perspective that differs from "question the official account of 9/11"? If so, I may be coming around. The article might be useful as a short description of how these scholars are collected under one banner, and a description of that would be useful as a link from the individual biographies as well as from the generic article. In any case, detailed recountings of their research seem to be more germane to the biographical articles since, as I noted before, they don't seem to have done much as a group besides collect the member's disparate work onto one site. --Dystopos 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Highly NPOV, almost seems like original research as well since it hasen't been published in a peer reviewed journal. If you can provide one study that was published in a PEER REVIEWED journal my vote will change to Keep. As well since when is a prof from a physics/astronomy dept a authority on civil engineering? Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What the group believes is highly POV; that they exist, and reporting what they believe, is not a POV statement. If it were, we'd have to nuke the articles on Democratic party, Republican Party, etc.  I do not believe these people are factually correct, however, they believe that, they're making the most coherently argued case for their beliefs of any of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and that's notable.  Accurately recording their existence and beliefs is important, even if they're wrong (and, yes, I do think they're wrong, personally).  Georgewilliamherbert 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Striver, There are actually not a million Lego articles here. Not even a hundred I don't think. Perhaps you're thinking of Brickwiki? How many different 9/11 skeptic articles do we need? Is every org that has some skeptics in it notable? This one hasn't necessarily estabilished notability yet has it? But the renom seems a little too close in. When thinking about a nom it may be a good idea to check the talk page to see if there's been one before. When this is nomed after a reasonable period, I'd probably vote delete unless more substantive notability was offered. If this does stick around it needs to be deweaseled and it needs to have explicit cites added.  + +Lar: t/c 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This might be the wrong place, but could you people also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11? --Striver 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 an/or related. Consider demerge in future if the small number of media mentions increases or the group does get peer-reviewed papers on the topic published. Rd232 talk 10:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: I am happy to support the above if that helps in the weighing of the opinions. Just zis Guy you know? 10:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with JzG. --Aaron 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- putting together a collection of nn doesn't make it n. Morton devonshire 11:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, this is a list of nn?:
 * CounterPunch.org, Daily Herald, Deseret News, Yahoo News and Miami Herald --Striver 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories or researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 as per Isopropyl. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. What criteria for being "encyclopedic" does this article topic not meet? Kevin Baastalk 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion does not make sense to me; if an outlandish and unscientific agenda is reason enough, we might as well start with Flat Earth Society. GregorB 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this article should be deleted because it is a POV fork. However this AfD is not helpful since it is so close to the previous AfD. Wait some time, and if the article is still unnecessary we can nominate it then. Rhobite 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Kevin Baas (which criteria for being "encyclopedic" does this article not meet), and I am suprised that it has come up again for deletion. I also agree that the point of view of the group is POV. If we should delete all articles mentioning POV views, there would not be much left. 9/11 truth is a group of specialist with a controversal view of 9/11 who have managed to make it into the main medias, even though the group has not been around for a long time. EyesAllMine 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POVFORK or merge. This belongs in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, perhaps as a section instead of a subsection.  Alternatively, I'd suggest making Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 a list with separate articles for each of its more notable members, including this one.  What's happening now, though, looks like out-of-control POV forking and a neglected article which, although long, is more like a list. bcasterlinetalk 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK --rogerd 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is definitly not a pov Fork! Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is a list of people, this is a article about a group that is notable iin themselve, having multiple University teachers, former government officials and having made a notable news impact. --Striver 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per all others. Arbusto 06:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep If we censor the wikipedia too much, we will have to move on to a more open system than this one.


 * Keep Pseudoscientists or not, the subjects of this article seem fairly notable. Dick Clark 22:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't understand this line of reasoning. If these same people got together and formed a Thursday-night bowling league, would the bowling league merit a Wikipedia entry? --Aaron 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, because such a bowling venture is unlikely to draw much attention, and these guys aren't noted for bowling in the first place. The fact of the matter is that a former Bush administration advisor (Morgan Reynolds), former director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development (Robert M. Bowman), a former director of the German Sectret Service (Andreas Von Buelow), et al. have contested the US government's official account of 9/11 and this is notable. Why is this more notable than if a bunch of garbage collectors were in such an association? Well, because many of these guys are notable for other endeavors. Some (although certainly not all) are experts in government policy and/or procedure. Dick Clark 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No.  But they're the most credible list of people leading the 9/11 conspiracy movement.  The 9/11 conspiracy movement is notable (see Zogby Poll results in this newsclip if 49% of New Yorkers believe there was some sort of coverup.  The leader is a physics professor (college professor is one of the defined notability examples) who's writing technical articles on the subject.  Because of this activity, it's notable.  The activity may be crank activity or pseudoscience, but 49% of New Yorkers is more than enough to push the topic into notability, and this is the most notable collection of people under the topic.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Where do they get this people? Jeeeessuuusss 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman
 * Comment Too bad no more User:Conwiki, who had an idea for a Wikiconspiracy. Schizombie 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and deserves an article that is separate from the researchers questioning page. --James 05:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasoning behind some of the votes in favour of deletion surprises me. Too bad if this group has published no peer-reviewed articles, but it can certainly be notable without them; Oolong never had any peer-reviewed articles published. If the article is POV, that's a good reason to improve it, not to delete it. David Sneek 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unreasonable to expect a notable rabbit to be peer-reviewed. It is not unreasonable to expect a notable group of scholars to be peer-reviewed. --Mmx1 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was that even if the work of this group would not be notable from a scholarly point of view (I'm agnostic on that), it can still be notable. Peer-review is not the only possible standard for notability. David Sneek 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable organization propagating crackpot theories. Notable members, citations in notable sources. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on notable crackpots! Babajobu 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOV. Stifle 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That link says: "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." David Sneek 10:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable group. The group hasn't actually done anything yet aside from a conclusion is based on the results of their own scientific and political research.  Funny the way these groups have professors of philosophy but never include a civil or structural engineer. Peter Grey 18:19, 1 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.