Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:33, 27 February 2006 editШизомби (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,533 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 01:04, 28 February 2006 edit undoAaron (talk | contribs)3,411 edits →[]: clarificationNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
:::*'''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.) --] 00:20, 26 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.) --] 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Wait... you < bang head > didn't look < bang head > at the talk page < bang head > before you AfD'ed it? ] 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) ::::Wait... you < bang head > didn't look < bang head > at the talk page < bang head > before you AfD'ed it? ] 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? --] 01:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 01:04, 28 February 2006

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)

  • Comment But you'll very rarely get a good reaction by renominating something so soon. Lack of explicit policy does not equal explicit encouragement. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 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 < bang head > didn't look < bang head > at the talk page < bang head > 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete Duplicates material already on researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, and other pages. Tom Harrison 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:11, 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) 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11? --Striver 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So, this is a list of nn?:
  • 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)

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)

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