Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11

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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11

non-notable fringe conspiracy theories have no place here, also they're hardly reasearchers anyway-RCT 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEPnuf said!--Sotoz
• delete blatent misuse of an encyclopedia to campaign for the DNC by pushing insane conspiracy theories, soapboxing for fringe idiots isn't the job of a wikipedia article-RCT 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't claiming that the DNC is pushing for these conspiracy theories as part of some sort of agitprop campaign count as an "Insane conspiracy theory?"--DCAnderson 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP notable people have come forth May 6th MAdison WI : W's Morgan Reynolds! (again!)
• Keep, this isn't an endorsement of their theories, merely documentation of them. There are plenty of notable alternate theories, whether they're credible or not. --W(t) 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W(t). I remember that this was AfDed already (see also article talk), but can't find a link. Anyway, I am all for deleting non-notable conspiracycruft, but we do need to have a place to merge the individual conspiracystubs to that crop up from time to time. Sandstein 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably you mean this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11, researchers. The article was merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories, which now has a Template:Tl tag, stating: "This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate." —Lambiam^Talk 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further research reveals that the present article evolved from the "September 11, researchers" article, which never got actually deleted, but only moved around. Since it was moved here, it has been edited extensively and mercilessly, so the old discussion does not mean much. Lambiam^Talk 07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W -- and note that this AfD is the only contribution [1] RCT has made on Wikipedia. "We're cleaning the bias off of wikipedia, one article at a time, pass it on to your closest friends" is -- well -- kinda nonwikipedian [2]EyesAllMine 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just like things like the Moon landing hoax, these conspiracy theories are notable enough to have an article. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This AFD is ridiculous. I see over 30 relatively notable names on the list of researchers! Whoever is proposing the AFD is engaging in beligerant behavior. Kaimiddleton 07:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a genuine subtopic. Metamagician3000 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why isn't this a category instead of an article? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep however I'd like to rename it Researchers who question the official account of 9/11 - Richardcavell 09:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename, as per Richard. The nominator does not seem to have a complete grasp of NPOV policy ("campaign for the DNC by pushing insane conspiracy theories"). David Sneek 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful and encyclopedic list, but move to List of prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists, which is precisely what the article is. There is no such thing as "the official account of 9/11". dbtfz^talk 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this looks very pov... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this was already turned into its own page because there wasn't room for it on the main 9/11 CT page. It has only grown since then and DOES include notable people - researchers who work in labs, former government officials, 9/11 families organizations, etc. Bov 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per the above Badgerpatrol 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, There is enough published research online from scientists and engineers regarding the fiction of the "Official 911 Story" to move the 911 Cover-up out of the conspiracy zone. The real conspiracy theory is the 19 amateurs with box cutters attacking the most powerful country on the face of the earth. Protean7 11:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Most of the people on this list are notable published authors/researchers or former government officials. Besides that, the holes and lies of the official story that most of these people have documented are not a "theory" as they've been documented- the official "theory" needs evidence to back it up as it is generally rejected by people looking into the facts and history behind 9/11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.70.139.175 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 April 2006. (And it is the only edit from this IP-address. --Lambiam^Talk 11:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
• Absolutely Keep: This has nothing to do with the DNC, this research is mathematical fact. The official government theory is biased and the 9-11 commission members are full of conflict of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.134 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 April 2006.
• Absolutely Keep: why shouldn't we be informed about the people that made this kind of speculations about 9/11?--Pokipsy76 07:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEPI've had to work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and I was the one who put the very long tag up there. I personally do not support these theories, but I believe that there existence is notable. This page seems to be very good as it merely lists who the conspiracy theorists are, and what they believe, without endorsing their views. This page is necescary as it keeps 9/11 conspiracy theories from being overly long.--DCAnderson 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but please make sure to keep it verifiable and avoid original research. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP !! please make sure to keep it. no democracy and no encyclopedia is working if alternative views, especially backed by researchers, are discarded!

• Keep - possibly merge with a related article? dreddnott 21:58, 26 April 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.