Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory)

POV Fork
In what way is this a PoV fork? This is not a POV fork; this is an attempt to make the initial article smaller. I have no issue with the editing of the main page; people claiming POV fork need to go look. This is exactly what was in the main article, with some minor editing to make it read better. The reason for the subarticle is that the initial article was far too long. I was being bold and making a subarticle page in order to make that article far smaller. Look at what is actually written before accusing someone of POV forking.

As for the claims that 9/11 conspiracy theories is too large - it is. But it is extremely well sourced and is quite relevant; according to polls more people disbelieve the official account of 9/11 than Evolution. How many pages does Creationism get? This should be treated the same way. It can be cut down a bit, but after looking at it a lot of it is important (in as far as it is a view held by a large number of people) and should remain - it is, after all, a page about conspiracy theories, not about what actually happened. Given people have written numerous books and documentaries on the subject, it is relevant. It is digital space, it is relevant, and there's nothing wrong with having five articles about various 9/11 conspiracy theories if they warrant the space - in fact, I suspect you'll end up with no more than 4-5 of them. If you want to try and cut down 9/11 conspiracy theories, please find a way to do so. I think this is the best way of making that page more concise without losing information. Titanium Dragon 05:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another analogy: suppose the controversy over the "unofficial" Bond-film Never Say Never Again grew to fill most of the article on James Bond, with all arguments and counter-arguments listed. Surely this material would be moved the article on the film (which already exists)? This would not be a POV fork (since all the views would be transferred in the move) but simply a way of keeping the Bond article tidy. In the case of the WTC, there are so many competing ideas within the CT community that the basic idea is pretty much lost. Moreover, the WTC issue is not central to all CTs, and very little depends on all the details (about which most CT'ers remain open minded).--Thomas Basboll 10:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)