Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11th Pyroclastic Flows

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. W.marsh 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This pertains to a conspiracy theory about the September 11, 2001 attacks. The article does not cite any sources, and focuses instead around one article hosted on a website "attempt[ing] to uncover the truth about September 11, 2001". We have a plethora of articles on the multitude of conspiracy theories surrounding that day, but the vast majority of them are on the conspiracy theory movement, instead of on the actual theories themselves. Of the few articles that we have on the actual conspiracy theories, the articles cite a multitude of sources and have established that the theories are verifiable and, at least within the conspiracy community, widespread and notable, something which this article fails to do. While a redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is plausible, I would advocate deletion, as the theory has not been proven to fit our criteria for inclusion, and a redirect from every conspiracy theory made regarding the events of that day would not be appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Good for a chuckle, but it should be deleted. EVula 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Without verification from reliable sources, the theory (as far as WP is concerned) does not exist, so a redirection- as stated by Flcello- would be inappropriate. -- Kicking222 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no verification.-- danntm ^T _C 04:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. NawlinWiki 04:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete I am the author of this article. I have never written an article before and am not good at editing for NPOV. People posted NPOV warnings on this article but posted no discussion of what was to be fixed. I don't think it is fair to post NPOV warnings without explaining yourself so I removed them. If they had left reasons on the discussion page I would have left the warning and discussed needed changes to the article. The article also is not finished as I work and cannot update it often. But the existence of pyroclastic flows in NYC on September is not deniable. You only need to look at the images from that day, from the tower being pulverised into dust (by what is the question,) to it blanketing the Island of Manhattan and going as far as New Jersey. When the article is finished please comment but do not delete the article because it is a conspiracy theory. The official story is also a conspiracy theory. 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack the World Trade Center using airplanes. To use such an argument to justify it's exclusion is a pathetic argument, and to say that the one source posted so far is just an article is proof you have not even looked at it. It is a serious academic paper that has undergone four peer contributed revisions, and it is solid science. Not very advanced science, but correct nonetheless. The science behind this is not that hard, high school mostly. How much kinetic energy is in the buildings and jet fuel? How much energy is used in the dust clouds following the collapse? If the answer to the second question is substantially larger than the first answer, then you have a missing energy source somewhere. Couple that to the existence of red-hot metal at ground zero, 3 storeys below the ground, for 99 days after 9/11 is proof there was another, much hotter energy source present on 9/11. Please allow me to finish the article and please contribute changes to editing and format errors, or post competing science, but do not delete the article.

I have a newbie question: Is video from Youtube, even if it is from major news outlets, allowed on the site, or is it only pictures allowed on Wikipedia? WhoWillTellThePeople 09:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)WhoWillTellThePeople[reply]

• Keep I think that the theory presented is completely and totally false. However, the article provides an explicit source for its claims. While I disagree with these claims as the ravings of the wackiest conspiracy theorists, the article is quite balanced and makes clear that it is an alternative theory, meeting all criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I see no legitimate justification for deletion of this article. Considering that the article was created just days ago, the fact that no effort was made by more knowledgeable Wikipedia editors to improve the article or to seek improvements is an embarrassment to the entire project. Alansohn 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vsmith 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete The basic observation of the dust cloud clearly shows an event that nearly identically resembles a pyroclastic surge phenomenon. If you understand the sheer amount of energy required to lift and travel the pulverized materials in that way, you'd have to question how gravity and carbon fires could produce said energy. If you do the math, calculating the potential energy of the buildings prior to impact (at rest) and then measure the amount of energy required to do what we all saw happened, there is a dramatic deficit.. anywhere between a factor of 100 and 500, depending on the variables. This phenomenon must be researched and the government's denial of it must be backed up with test results. This article should stay and be improved with it's focus being the thermodynamic requirements to move that pulverized matter in the way we saw it happen. Wikipedia's policies regarding information like this is showing firmly that the interest is not to provide truth, but to cover up "dangerous" information on a governmental level.
• weak delete. needs reputable sources and is unencyclopediatic and POV in current form. Both of these can be overcome, however; absurdity of someone's quackery is in and of itself not grounds for deletion if there are prominent and reputable sources covering the quackery. But until then... Baccyak4H 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speculations. Mukadderat 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn --Arvedui 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete `'mikkanarxi 21:06, 8 November 2006 (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.