Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The "9/11 Truth Movement" WikiProject


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy delete as userfied by User:Striver -- Samir   धर्म 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The "9/11 Truth Movement" WikiProject - WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement
A WikiProject organized around a POV, contrary to WP:NPOV. This appears to recreate the deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild". -- Aude ( talk contribs ) 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and delete. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep What POV? How does a NPOV project look like, if this is a POV project? --Striver 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This project is intended to organize and divide Wikipedians by POV. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Were did you get that from`? --Striver 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The POV of the group is obviously supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement which itself does not hold a NPOV. Canadian-Bacon 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Were does it say that? Really, show it, so we can remove it. I tried hard to make the project NPOV, did i miss anything? --Striver 17:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Striver, I'll try to explain. The wikiproject seems like it is only for people who agree with the 9/11 Truth Movement (even the title supports this view).  Perhaps it would be better to create a September 11th attacks Wikiproject to encompass all of the viewpoints and aspects of the attack, including the truth movement.  Also, the name of a Wikiproject should be Wikipedia:WikiProject project name here.  No opinion from me; just trying to clear things up for the project's creator. Srose  (talk)  17:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Srose! Ok, in that case, should we delete WikiProject Christianity, since we already have WikiProject Religion? Christianity is most certanly a POV among many religious POVs, isnt it? Ill rename the article accoring to "Wikipedia:WikiProject project name here". I hope that is sufficient. --Striver 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Article renamed to "Wikipedia:WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement", according to comment made by user:Srose Comment moved here to keep the debate in context
 * The Christianity WikiProject is acceptable because there are an enormous amount of articles related to Christianity. However, while I myself am intrigued by the 9/11 Truth Movement, I don't think it has enough articles to deserve its own wikiproject.  Now, if you wanted to make the WikiProject simply to improve the 9/11 Truth Movement article (ONLY the 9/11 Truth Movement article & related articles) AND you had other members (WikiProjects generally require at least 4 to 5 members), I think that would be all right.  But the group will turn off a lot of people who don't believe in the movement because they won't want to be a part of something that conflicts with their beliefs.  If you make a 9/11 WikiProject instead, well, I'm quite sure a LOT of people would join because it would be NPOV, and it could still have one of its goals outlined as building up Wikipedia articles on the truth movement. Srose  (talk)  17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * this nomination was made within 40 minutes of creation, so i have not hade time to enter all 911TM articles. But there are a lot of them, just think of all independent films, sites, persons and so on. Im sure there will be people who will join, i mean, you can't delete a project with 40 minutes of creation on the merits of not having members... I intend to edit 911TM articles, the non-911TM articles are not very interesting to me right now. The article does nowere imply that somebody is unwelcomed, on the contrary, it states that everybody is wellcomed. Now, if somebody is not interested in the project and does not want to join, it can hardly be blamed on the project, can it? --Striver 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have to say keep, especially as the project is named after the article and offspring articles that it produced, not the POV behind the movement. Nominating a WikiProject for deletion 40 minutes after its creation isn't a great idea.  Give it time to grow.  After Striver's explaination, I believe that this group was made in good faith and not to push a POV. Srose  (talk)  20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As with the deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild, he has a track record with this sort of thing, creating POV pushing "Guilds". This WikiProject, with the given title, is one that would attract users with certain POV.  As such, I don't see it helping with NPOV, as there is no WikiProject for non-conspiracy theorists.  Nor would such a WikiProject be a good idea, just as this 9/11 truth wikiproject isn't a good idea. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to weak delete'... I was not aware of the other MfDs. Sorry, Striver. Srose  (talk)  13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * speedy keep. This nom was made right after the project was, and there are a LOT of articles that tie into this. Premature nom, and not really a good one. rootology (T) 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds a POV pushing vehicle to me. --Peephole 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then join and make sure it won't become one! --Striver 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, the title seems POV, but if interpreted to say the project is about the 9/11 Truth Movement then it's seems to be fine. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt, the page makes it clear they intend to enforce NPOV, and they should be able to operate and have a track record before their motives are questioned. hateless 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, another attempt to use Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear violation of NPOV.--Runcorn 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I can't see a POV from the current draft, so I think a POV deletion is at least premature.  (I do encourage the project organizers to recruit some editors from both sides of the POV if possible).  I'm tempted to delete it as projectcruft, and suspect that it will end up collecting solely people on one side of the POV or the other, but it's still too early to delete.  TheronJ 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, clearified title.--Striver 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors from the "other side" are highly unlikely to join and associate themselves with a project by that name. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 22:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What should the project be named? It was renamed to the current title due to comments from Srose. What do you propose as a good name? --Striver 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete will be used to push a particular point-of-view in articles and to gain systematic keep votes in afd's related to this projects "scope".--Jersey Devil 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then join to assure it will not happen. --Striver 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, Jersey... Srose (talk)  23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JD, really, we both know were we stand, and you are needed in the project in order to balance it.--Striver 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Srose, please see the following:
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shi'a Guild/Afd
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild--Jersey Devil 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Those are somewhat worrisome....  I feel that we should give this WikiProject at least a little while to see if it will prove that the creator has learned from his mistakes, but I am quite concerned.  In light of these revelations I have changed my vote to a weak delete - I'd still like to believe that this user has learned from his mistakes, but it's difficult to do so.  I apologize for worrying that you were not assuming good faith; I did not know about those other MfDs and now understand your concern. Srose  (talk)  13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for now even with AGF, as this looks like a recreation of the previously deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild by the same User. feydey 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * May i ask how you can make that comparison, noting that project being deleted? Does having made one bad guild warant the removal of all future ones? Why not judge this one on its own merits? --Striver 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since You have a troubled history with conspiracy related subjects could You imagine not creating wikiprojects on them and just concentrating to other areas of Wikipedia? feydey 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, conspiracy related subjects are conteitious by nature. Further, Religion is my main field of work here on wikipedia. Me having a "troubled history with conspiracy related subjects" is acctualy the main reason for creating a project, in this case, i will not be alone in my edits, and i will have a centrilized place to turn to when in need of advice and help. If i was not intrested in other peoples views, i would just continue on my own, not trying to start a project. --Striver 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Given Striver's constant battles to crowbar in his conspiracy theories everywhere and anyhow he can, no assumption of good faith is warranted. And balance it? No matter much lipstick you put on a pig, it'll never be Miss Universe. --Calton | Talk 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to make sure nobody misses it, the project has a sub-section: WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement/Assessment--Striver 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems like the list will be used to fill in all the red links with marginally or non-notable articles, such as the newly created 9/11 Citizens Watch (who's website ranks low on Alexa, and is marked as a copyright problem ). As much as I like to AGF, I'm aware that Striver has a track record of doing this, as evidenced by the many red links and afd's listed on User:Striver/Contributions. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: The copyvio claim seems invalid on 9/11 Citizens Watch, as Striver properly quotes and cites their website. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 01:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, those names are all present on the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article. I did not creat them since i do not know anything about them, but since they are notable enough to be in that article, i added them to that list, in case somebody can assert notability for them. Is not that the whole point of a wikiproject? Why am i blamed for doing what i am supposed to? --Striver 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as invitation to POV. We wouldn't have a "Wikiproject Democratic Party" or a "Wikiproject Republican Party", this should get the axe. --Mmx1 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we not have that? And why do we have projects on religions? --Striver 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of what i understood from WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. The attached talk pages are a convenient forum for those interested in a particular project. Projects can also have associated Wikiportals.". It does not say anything to the effect of excluding a certain field of related topics. Or am i missing something? --Striver 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete You got to be kidding...this is nothing but a platform to launch conspiracy theory nonsense from. Striver can userfy it under a different name if he wants, but this project doesn't serve any purpose other than to make Wikipedia look like a kook hangout.--MONGO 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a covert attempt at POV pushing. Comparing this to WikiProject Christianity is ludicrous and undermines any plausible argument that Striver has.  -- Samir   धर्म 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little usefulness from an encyclopedic point of view can come from a project which admittedly limits itself to review articles related to an obscure, inherently speculative and POV movement. While I'm readily willing to assume good faith on Striver's part, this is comparable to the aforementioned Wikiproject: Conspiracy theories guild - it is simply impossible to expect a true NPOV attitude in matters like this.  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This arguement implies that minority view articles should not get a project, and hence be not allowed the same attention and care as the maintream articles on the mere fact that the subjects of the article hold views not held by the majority. Is this suggested principle only to be applied to project with subjects of non-religious view, or also to projects like WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church? --Striver 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your claimed-NPOV resource is [ prisonplanet.com]? That sir is not a minority view, that is a soapbox -- Samir   धर्म 10:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No bro, Prisonplanet is a highly pov source: 9/11 Truth Movement point of view. In the same way, the Popular Mechanics source is a maintream point of view source. NPOV does not mean No POV. But we all know that. Does the project calim that prisonplanet is a NPOV source of information?--Striver 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, think i missread your statment. You meant that Prisonplanet itself is not a good source for 9/11 Truth Movement views. In that case, this is not the proper channel to disscus that. peace. --Striver 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment- This can't be compared to WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. These are projects about a topic - Mormons, Jehovahs, etc - while "WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement" is about an opinion on a topic - ie, obtaining some "truth" that has been withheld about 9/11. That seems to be a POV, and unwelcoming to those who don't hold such a position, who aren't part of this "movement." For example, a project on "getting to the truth about Jehovah's Witnesses" would be unacceptable, no? That's what this seems like. Just create a project about 9/11 in general, which can include conspiracy-related themes, and leave it at that. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but the arguement is irrelevant. WikiProject states that projects are created to coordinate large number of related article, it says nothing about what topics are "ok" and what topics are not "ok". Furhter, Jehovahs is not a "topic", its a group that holds a distinct (no crusifiction, no trinity, no hell) and minor (about 1% of population) view. The same is true for the 911TM, they hold a distinct and minor view on some subject, and what difference does it make if the subject is an event (911) or a persons (Jesus)? In fact, you could just as well argue that JW is only based on the notionion of the Bible being the word of God. We have historians that belive Jesus existed, but are not religious, hence a group that is based on the notion of the Bible being the word of God is a very distinct POV group. You could just as well argue that WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses is "POV, and unwelcoming to those who don't hold such a position, who aren't part of this [comunity]". All of that is irrelvant, the only thing that is relevant, according to WikiProject, wether there is a large number of related articles that need cetralized oragnization.--Striver 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep (and keep an eye on it). I think it's too soon to dismiss it. I'm going to join and if it goes off the rails I'll be the first to call for its deletion (actually, I think I know a couple of people who'll beat me to it.)--Thomas Basboll 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Some argue that this project should be deleted since some people feel such strong aversion to the project that they do not even want to be associated with it. That argument ignores that there are people how do not share the same aversion, no mater wether they sympathies with the movements view or not. An example would be User:Srose from above. She has not expressed any support for the movements view, but is interested in the topic. A project should not be deleted only because it deals with contentious but existing articles. Deleting this projects on the argment that the topic is controversial does a disservice to the articles it aims to improve, and ultimately a disservice to the quality of wikipedia.--Striver 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * welcome to the project :) --Striver 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. A virtually one-person effort does not need to be a project. This project appears intended to further a POV, rather than to cover a topic neutrally. If necessary, there should be a project covering the broader topic, i.e. "9/11 attacks Wikiproject". -Will Beback 05:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok then, if we rename the project to Wikipedia:WikiProject 9/11 Attacks]], will you change your vote? --Striver 10:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This looks like something that belongs in user space, not as a Wikiproject. It's possible that this project may have been created with good intentions, but it's virtually certain to become a means to promote a conspiracy theory POV. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 13:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per ZimZalaBim. -Hyphen5 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a one-editor crusade, doesn't belong in project space. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * sight. Ill userfy it and remake it when there is more support for it.--Striver 00:03, 13 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.