Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 consensus panel

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 was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 consensus panel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization has no evidence of notability. It may be composed of "notable" members, but notability cannot be inherited. I can't find any references to the group itself beyond press releases and mentions on the websites of equally POV organizations. It may be possible to preserve some of this on 9/11 conspiracy theories, assuming at least one source can be found outside of the group itself (of course, if multiple sources are available that I can't find, the article need not be deleted). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the sources currently in the article have nothing to do with the panel whatsoever--they're just links to articles written by members of the panel (long before the panel existed, I think). Thus, they do nothing to establish the panel's notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; if the author or other editors can prove that this is a notable organization, we can fold it into the 9/11 conspiracies page. Judging from the Wikipedia article on one of the founders of this group, it seems pretty clear that they are a pro-conspiracy organization, but just being one of many such groups does not confer notability. As an aside, article author threatened to "take it to the top of your organization" if this page was deleted. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources found; as a representative sample, the first page of ghits gives: the founder's webpage, a conspiracy blog, a letter from the panel, the panel's webpage, a conspiracy forum, a press release, the Wikipedia article, a conspiracy blog, the same press release again and a copy of the panel's webpage. Not a single third-party reference that even discusses their existence, let alone any claim of notability. Yunshui (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, it turns out that the article creator is one of the panel members {editor self identifies on her user page with link to a blog under her name)...while not technically against the rules, it certainly doesn't help. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if sources can be found the information clearly belongs into 9/11_Truth_movement. Right now, it's just too little to warrant a standalone article. SK (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I wanted to add that it doesn't meet WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion criteria, as the article asserts importance, even if we cannot find evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete One GNews hit, in this month yet, does not notability make, and given the state of the field, I don't see how this can escape WP:UNDUE anyway. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.