Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd)

Comments
Why not then trim the article to something like: Some people have written books to make a buck and have stated that the world trade center was blown up. Since none of these books are factual, Wikipedia has decided to not bother to list them here since doing so will only help them have their information here, which is the same thing as giving them a place to advertise and make more money. The end. That would be all the article should say.--Beguiled 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that would violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BIO. Not to say that the current article is good, since I have stated above that I do not think it is, but your idea is even worse. --Wildnox(talk) 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So instead we have an article that only helps these people make more money since their "stuff" is posted here. What authority do they represent? It's not like we don't have factual information from which we can state the facts. Why are we aiding and abetting their lies?--Beguiled 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Beguiled - why have you only ever edited 9/11 conspiracy articles? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone else you would like to ask about that? Tom Harrison Talk 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited articles that are not conspiracy theory articles too. The real collapse article is not a conspiracy theory article. It is based on facts, not fiction.--Beguiled 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You first edit was last week and was an act of near vandalism on an 9/11 related topic. I call sock.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears you have one article edit that was not on a conspiracy theory article, and that was adding the word conspiracy to a section of the collapse article. I don't believe that you are a sock, since I see no evidence to suspect such a thing, but I do think you are here for a singe purpose related to the conspiracy theory articles, which is not a good thing. --Wildnox(talk) 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that's a bad thing, you should look at the work of, well, it wouldn't be nice to name names. Look through the contribution history of some of the 9/11 conspiracy theory pages, and you will find lots of people doing what you criticize Beguiled for. It's possible he wonders why you are singling him out. Tom Harrison Talk 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many editors that do that, the majority, in my opinion, are not good editors. The reason I pointed it out with beguiled is that he tried to claim that he edited articles that weren't related to conspiracy articles, which is false. I also pointed it out for the understanding that even though I think the sock accusations are false and most likely uncalled for, what he actually is doing isn't good either. --Wildnox(talk) 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never done vandalism. "Sock" what? Is that something like a sack?--Beguiled 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny. I'm sure you're smarter than that, so it has to be humor. Dman727 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But if he's not, they are implying you are a sockpuppet. Lets assume good faith.--NMajdan &bull;talk 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to remind User:beguiled that whether something is factual or just plain trash is really not up to the editors to decide. We are to present the facts regarding the issue and then let the reader make his interpretations. Additionally, you claim this helps them make money... but by that logic, Wikipedia should never make an article about any company or any material in print or publication (lest someone read the article and want to buy it.) .V. (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as editorial judgement. Some things are complete bollocks, no matter how many people believe them. Tom Harrison Talk 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We could make a list. This would be controversial, of course.  I wonder if it would pass all the WP guidelines!  I believe this hypothesis to be complete bollocks.  That is what spurred me into editing parts of the article.  Our list might include (with no intention of disrespect to anyone who believes in them):
 * God (in any form)
 * Satan or equivalents
 * This hypothesis
 * Father Christmas
 * Diana was assasinated
 * Flying pigs
 * and so forth. This does not mean that we should not have articles about  notable, verifiable items on the list (though verifying God seems hard unless one dies and comes back!).  The very idea of removing Father Christmas because (a) he does not exist and (b) because people make a profit out of selling toys because of the folklore that he exists woudl be ludicrous.  So yes, we have editorial choice.  Discussions like this one are those that prevent censorship by one dissenting voice.  Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the three-revert rule prevents censorship by one dissenting voice. Consensus prevents a group of promoters from using Wikipedia to advance their theories. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)