Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

don't delete this page please... i don't believe it is true, but the conspiracy theorists LOVE it when they get censored, as it only 'proves' they are right

Line breaks
Positioning of them is arbitrary, based solely on scrolling up/down in the edit window and placing them 50% of the way down from the entry point of the preceding point. Just seems to make sense so each edit doesn't require 1,000 line scrolls. · XP  · 04:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing rationales
The result is no consensus. The simple vote count itself, after discounting or tempering the weight of certain comments was mind-numbingly close, and I was admittedly disappointed at the quality of the arguments on both sides. I discounted opinions that were based mostly or solely on POV irrelevant to whether the article should be kept. Example:

Keep. The official theory about the collapse of the WTC was unclear.

I also discounted a single straight vote. I lowered the weight of opinions given by most single-purpose accounts. (People who only edited within a very narrow range of articles.) These were more likely to give undue weight to one position.

Critiquing the "keep" position
I remain thoroughly unconvinced that this theory is a widespread phenomenon. Sure, it may have received passing mention in major news sources and enough attention elsewhere for it to have its own article, but it's certainly not a belief held by a third of the U.S. population as a couple editors seem to be trying to argue. XP points to an article in an Australian newspaper in order to prove this. A quote from the newspaper:


 * "A Ohio University poll, for example, says 36 per cent of Americans believe the Bush administration was either an active participant or had prior warning of the 9/11 attacks."

There are many categories of disbelievers in the government's position on the attacks; these include people who simply think the government knew the terrorists were coming in planes and did nothing to stop it, to people who think the planes were remote controlled, etc. That percentage includes a wide variety of beliefs, not limited to just the controlled detonation hypothesis. It's not valid to think that everyone who believes in some sort of 9/11 conspiracy also believes in this, and I also question that this is the basis of mainstream conspiracy beliefs, as some seem to claim. (These questions are important in determining whether the theory might be being given undue weight in having its own article and thereby being supported too much, per Neutral_point_of_view. Note that this is not a strict interpretation, as the current wording of this policy leaves room for articles on views held by a tiny minority.)

Tyrenius gave two links to try to prove this subject's coverage in the Guardian. One was about a meeting of one of the conspiracy theorist groups (Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I think?) which never mentioned controlled demolition that I could see. The other only mentioned the subject in relation to Charlie Sheen, in a somewhat ridiculing tone. Associations and passing mentions don't help convince me of "major media coverage".

Also, stop comparing the verifiability of this article to God. That's a really bad straw man argument, and you know it.

Critiquing the delete position
A lot of the deletionists presented problems with the article that are indicative of cleanup, not deletion. Deletion policy is very specific about the sorts of things that require cleanup instead of deletion, and it is very hard to delete articles that have cleanup-worthy problems with them. The most egregious un-cleanupable article I've ever seen was deleted only on its second nomination, and even that is pretty rare. These concerns include the claims of original research, POV, etc. If half the references are bad, they can be removed and the article can be refactored as such.

I think the point that many of the delete viewpoints were trying to make, even if they didn't state it as such, was that the article was either not notable enough for its own article. The article is well-referenced enough to show that it is certainly notable. I think the deletionists could have focused more on the undue weight aspect not only within the article, but concerning the existence of the article lending too much support to the theory. (Perhaps the mention on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories is enough!) However, on the other hand, this is a new interpretation of the undue weight sub-policy as stated in the previous section and this would (or should) be a new precedent in that area if this article were to be deleted. Also, I should point out that we do have a whole article on a high-profile conspiracy theory that is not held as a belief by very many people: Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. I wouldn't want this article to be deleted, and it is not notable because of how many people believe it, but because of the coverage and pop-culture mention it has received. That may not be comparable to this, however, as that theory has been around a long time and does not have the same morbid undertones as this, so it can be joked about more freely in popular media.

MONGO argued repeatedly that this is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center because the links and content allowed in this article were not allowed there. I'm terribly sorry, but I looked through the talk page and two most recent archives of that page and was unable to find any relevant discussion on this matter. (Provide a link next time if you can.) From that, from looking at the early history of this article and from what I had seen of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page in the past (which I was involved in the cleanup of months ago, but did not add any significant content to) I am forced to conclude that this was, indeed, originally intended as a content fork, not a POV fork.

Conclusions and plan of action
Moving forward, I think that this should not be used as a precedent against another AfD in at least a month from now. The article stands on thin legs right now as far as its demonstrable coverage in major news stories, from what I can see. What happens to this article sets a precedent for other conspiracy theory articles and may bring on slight changes to the undue weight policy and perhaps other policies that stretch further than most people can readily imagine, in my opinion.

No-one seemed to touch on the paradox this situation creates in regards to WikiPolicy. The article was likely split from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories in a manner legitimately through policy, but the resulting article, following its subsequent growth, may violate a few policies by its very nature. This contradiction could be explored further.

The article MUST BE CLEANED UP and shortened, in the process of weeding out improper references. For now, I hope my explanation makes sense, as I have spent much time crafting it. Thank you and good night. Grand master  ka  10:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "passing mention" which is all that is supported by policy, and is easily found, had one simply taken 5 seconds to do so.--MONGO 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Expression of thanks
I think I probably speak for a good many of those involved when I say a heartfelt "Thank you" for the clear way you have handled the closure of this AfD. You have given us a total overview of your rationale that has logic behind it. It was not an easy AfD to close, and, whether we are in wholehearted agreement with you or whether we disagree totally I think we can say that you have executed the task you volunteered for with honour, and excellent documentation.

If it has not already been done, and I suspect it has, I think we can celebrate this closure with a tag on the article itself. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, very well done! Your reasoning on all points is spot on. · XP  · 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou.--Thomas Basboll 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, nicely done. As a niggle, I'd much prefer to see your proposed expansion of undue weight be added through policy discussion than through precedent. Derex 02:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)