Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:32, 26 September 2006

Revision as of 05:52, 26 September 2006

Line 61:

:::Mmx, I don't think you read very far into the article. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

====Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (1)====

*'''Keep''' the hypothesis is nonsense; however, it is notable. the article is a good place to document the nonsense. if the article is poor now, the solution is to fix it. if that is too difficult, npov tag it. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 09:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

*:I'm really troubled by the idea of "documenting the nonsense". If the article is nonsense, as you suggest, wouldn't it be appropriate to just [[WP:CSD]]:G1 it and move on? [[User:Alphachimp|<font color="OrangeRed">alpha</font><font color="black">'''Chimp'''</font>]]^{[[User talk:Alphachimp|(talk)]]} 09:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Line 112:

::'''Comment'''. "Hypothesis" is the word that both the official report on the collapse (NIST) and the most detailed statement statement of it (Jones) uses. This is very clear in the present article, which cites both Jones' emphasis on its hypothetical nature and NIST's use of the same word. As for the sourcing, yes, it is uneven. But the hypothesis itself is easily located in a handful of detailed conspiracy theories ''and'' mainstream media coverage ''and'' the official investigation (brief mention) ''and'' the scientific literature (very brief mention). We need to filter out some noise in the article, not start from scratch. (Though the thought has also occured to me.)--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

====Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (2)====

*'''Strong & Speedy Keep''' This article is fair, balanced and detailed. It has 108 references! It is a controversial topic, but it deals with both side of the issue fairly. The nominating editor, Mongo, is a well known POV pusher and abusive deletionist who has been frequently and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:MONGO_reported_by_User:_User:XP__.28Result:_12_hours_for_both_XP_and_Mongo.29 recently blocked] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop numberious violations]. I belive it is infact the article's fairness and lack of bias that this user objects to. This a a bad faith nomination.[[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

*:I once again appreciate Seabecan's personal attacks and odd linking to an arbcom case which has already resulted in two of those who were harassing me now being indef banned...and this is before the voting has even commenced. Seabhcan claims this article is balanced. The only fact based citations are those from mainstream science, not from non peer reviewed conspiracy theory websites. This article is clearly not capable of ever being neutral, except to those who dream and fantasize that controlled demolition is what really happened on 9/11. My guess is that, as usual, this kind of comment from Seabhcan is deliberately designed to provoke a hostile response...kind of the thing I deal with when he posts edit summaries such as these:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=65024234], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=51496524], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=51428328] and of course there are more. Seabhcan's presentation of a barnstar to an indefinitely banned editor was also, well, strange, especially when done after he that editor has been banned.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATruthSeeker1234&diff=65288217&oldid=65288015].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Line 151:

*'''Delete''' Might make a good section in a more general page on 9/11 theory but this is not encyclopedic. It's a agenda pushing advocacy page, most of the sources come from a tiny handful of people and the rest is original research. I've looked at this and it's a hand waving mess of a POV fork, which we don't do here. This piece of blue sky can be expressed in [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] in as few words as it took to say this. The keep !voters are not convincing. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

====Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (3)====

*'''Keep'''. A valuable article, being a lucid synthesis of conspiracists' claims counterpointed with real engineering. I particularly loved: "which were not open sided car parks". But this article obviously needs serious on-going editorial time to prevent it deteriorating into a free for all. I ain't volunteering, so unless someone is I agree it would be safer to, erm, pull it. [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 10:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:Most/nearly all of the material in the Controlled demolition (CD) article previously existed in the [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] article. Now we have a section, [[9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center]] that discusses CD in brief, with mentions of details (e.g. [[Larry Silverstein]]'s "pull it" quote) in both articles. The editorial time commitment to keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories and the CD article both saying the same consistent, NPOV, RS things is arduous. The better solution is to put the CD material back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and get rid of material that is not in compliance with Wikipedia policies (e.g. [[WP:RS]]). That would take care of the article size issue. The time it takes to keep tabs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories spin-off articles only detracts from the goals of the Wikipedia project. At least, it has taken significant amount of my editing time away from working on other articles, and bringing them to good/featured status. It would be better for Wikipedia to have CD in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, rather than having this spin-off article which would likely be a [[WP:NOT|soapbox]] venue. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]] [[User:AudeVivere/Contributions|as tagcloud]])</small> 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)