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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:04, 28 February 2006 editAaron (talk | contribs)3,411 edits →[]: clarification← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:10, 3 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(24 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''no consensus'''. ] 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
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 The single "scientific study" it uses as its main crutch of notability is not peer-reviewed.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.) ] 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 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 The single "scientific study" it uses as its main crutch of notability is not peer-reviewed.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.) ] 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 5: Line 12:


:*'''Comment''': From ]: ''There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated.'' --] 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''': From ]: ''There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated.'' --] 20:14, 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''' But you'll very rarely get a good reaction by renominating something so soon. Lack of explicit policy does not equal explicit encouragement. — ] (]) 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.) --] 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)
Line 24: Line 31:
:It doesnt get more NPOV than that :) --] 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :It doesnt get more NPOV than that :) --] 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Please see ], ], ], ], among others. ] 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment'''. Please see ], ], ], ], among others. ] 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Sriver's examples aren't weasel words...they attribute specific positions to a specific source, the very opposite of weasel words. ] 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''<s>Weak Delete'''</s> '''Merge''' to ] (per ]). Notability is marginal, and would seem to stem from the membership rather than the accomplishments of the group. Voting delete because information about this group would be more encyclopedic as a single link from a more general article on independent reviews of the events of 9/11. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be much that can be said about this subject without resorting to POV, Original Research, or Weasel Words. --] 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *'''<s>Weak Delete'''</s> '''Merge''' to ] (per ]). Notability is marginal, and would seem to stem from the membership rather than the accomplishments of the group. Voting delete because information about this group would be more encyclopedic as a single link from a more general article on independent reviews of the events of 9/11. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be much that can be said about this subject without resorting to POV, Original Research, or Weasel Words. --] 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Procedural keep''' as premature nomination of nominally notable group. — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC) * '''Procedural keep''' as premature nomination of nominally notable group. — ] (]) 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''speedy keep''': An unfortunate serial AfD attempt; distracts from actually building an encyclopedia; disruptive at best. ] 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *'''speedy keep''': An unfortunate serial AfD attempt; distracts from actually building an encyclopedia; disruptive at best. ] 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Let me also remind the jury that this information is available with much less filler and many fewer calories at ]. Consider the implications of a content/POV ]. ] 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment'''. Let me also remind the jury that this information is available with much less filler and many fewer calories at ]. Consider the implications of a content/POV ]. ] 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' We looked at that in the AfD which completed a few days ago, and concluded that the fork issue wasn't fatal. Nothing has changed of note in the last ten days. ] 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''' We looked at that in the AfD which completed a few days ago, and concluded that the fork issue wasn't fatal. Nothing has changed of note in the last ten days. ] 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep.'''</s> 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. ] 21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Keep.'''</s> 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. ] 21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Nice find,''' Isopropyl. I didn't even know that article existed. That would be a perfect place for this article. I change vote to '''Merge''' into ]. ] 21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :*'''Nice find,''' Isopropyl. I didn't even know that article existed. That would be a perfect place for this article. I change vote to '''Merge''' into ]. ] 21:42, 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. ] 21:40, 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. ] 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. I would agree with you if these comments were in reference to ]. Please do not immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you is ''wrong''. ] 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC) **'''Comment'''. I would agree with you if these comments were in reference to ]. Please do not immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you is ''wrong''. ] 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 51: Line 59:
* '''Merge''' as per ] for little substantial content. ] 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) * '''Merge''' as per ] for little substantial content. ] 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' sure last AfD was nine days ago, but the group still only gets 181 unique Googles, which is about what I get and I am not claiming to be notable. Isopropyl's argument is also valid. ] 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' sure last AfD was nine days ago, but the group still only gets 181 unique Googles, which is about what I get and I am not claiming to be notable. Isopropyl's argument is also valid. ] 23:31, 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) :* 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. — ] (]) 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''' - 56,200 result at Google search. ] 00:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''' - 56,200 result at Google search. ] 00:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Line 58: Line 66:
As of 2006-02-26, a "]" search gave 29 hits on the "'''Scholars for 9/11 Truth'''" searchstring --] 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) As of 2006-02-26, a "]" search gave 29 hits on the "'''Scholars for 9/11 Truth'''" searchstring --] 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. --] 01:16, 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. --] 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? ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 02:07, 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? ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 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 ], ], 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). ] 09:29, 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 ], ], 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). ] 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Striver, There are actually not a million ] articles here. Not even a hundred I don't think. Perhaps you're thinking of ]? 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. <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Striver, There are actually not a million ] articles here. Not even a hundred I don't think. Perhaps you're thinking of ]? 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. ]+]: ]/] 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


This might be the wrong place, but could you people also take a look at ]? --] 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC) This might be the wrong place, but could you people also take a look at ]? --] 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 92: Line 100:
*'''Delete''' Where do they get this people? Jeeeessuuusss 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman *'''Delete''' Where do they get this people? Jeeeessuuusss 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman
*'''Comment''' Too bad no more ], who had an idea for a Wikiconspiracy. ] 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Too bad no more ], who had an idea for a Wikiconspiracy. ] 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' notable and deserves an article that is separate from the researchers questioning page. --] 05:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The reasoning behind some of the votes in favour of deletion surprises me. Too bad if this group has published no peer-reviewed articles, but it can certainly be notable without them; ] never had any peer-reviewed articles published. If the article is POV, that's a good reason to improve it, not to delete it. ] 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
::It is unreasonable to expect a notable rabbit to be peer-reviewed. It is not unreasonable to expect a notable group of scholars to be peer-reviewed. --] 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
:::My point was that even if the work of this group would not be notable from a scholarly point of view (I'm agnostic on that), it can still be notable. Peer-review is not the only possible standard for notability. ] 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Notable organization propagating crackpot theories. Notable members, citations in notable sources. Misplaced Pages has plenty of articles on notable crackpots! ] 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ]. ] 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:That link says: "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." ] 10:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': Non-notable group. The group hasn't actually '''done''' anything yet aside from a ''conclusion is based on the results of their own scientific and '''political''' research''. Funny the way these groups have professors of philosophy but never include a civil or structural engineer. ] 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 11:10, 3 March 2023

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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: 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)
Sriver's examples aren't weasel words...they attribute specific positions to a specific source, the very opposite of weasel words. Babajobu 16:16, 28 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. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 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)
  • Delete Where do they get this people? Jeeeessuuusss 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman
  • Comment Too bad no more User:Conwiki, who had an idea for a Wikiconspiracy. Schizombie 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and deserves an article that is separate from the researchers questioning page. --James 05:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasoning behind some of the votes in favour of deletion surprises me. Too bad if this group has published no peer-reviewed articles, but it can certainly be notable without them; Oolong never had any peer-reviewed articles published. If the article is POV, that's a good reason to improve it, not to delete it. David Sneek 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to expect a notable rabbit to be peer-reviewed. It is not unreasonable to expect a notable group of scholars to be peer-reviewed. --Mmx1 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My point was that even if the work of this group would not be notable from a scholarly point of view (I'm agnostic on that), it can still be notable. Peer-review is not the only possible standard for notability. David Sneek 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That link says: "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." David Sneek 10:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable group. The group hasn't actually done anything yet aside from a conclusion is based on the results of their own scientific and political research. Funny the way these groups have professors of philosophy but never include a civil or structural engineer. Peter Grey 18:19, 1 March 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.