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 merge to 9/11 Truth Movement. The consensus appears to be that although this group is sufficiently covered that Wikipedia should have material about it, it is not notable enough for its own article (especially now the organisation has split and no longer exists as one entity) and the prominence of its present coverage leads to undue weight concerns. WjBscribe 06:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No longer notable. Sources are puffery meant to promote them via Wikipedia Google page ranking. Abuse of NPOV, synthesis of original research. Harmful per BLP. Shawnbird 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was about to propose keeping this article until I took a closer look at the sources. I have come to the conclusion that this movement is merely a disparate group of conspiracy nuts, and while many of the members are themselves notable and well sourced, there seems to be little information on the group itself. And while the group is perhaps notable merely by virtue of being formed of notable individuals, the article should only be about the official actions and views of the group, and critisisms towards the group itself. Not such things about the members thereof. And so, (short of reading all sources in their entirety) but also having done a search for new sources, I have come to the belief that the group itself might actually be unsourcable, as far as reliable, independent sources go. Someguy1221 06:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Insane though these conspiracy nutters undoubtedly are this is a fair enough article. It has sources, the group has been mentioned by reputable media organisations and, as it currently stands, the article is balanced and does not make the slew of stupid assertions one might expect. People are going to search the net for these loons, at least if they come to this wikipedia article there is some hope of a balanced introduction. It's passed AfD on 4 occasions and this one won't be any different. Nick mallory 06:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This organization really exists only in blogdom, Wikipedia, and the mind of James Fetzer.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources aren't the best, but many are from mainstream media. Indeed these conspiracy theorists gained a fair bit of media attention, and a clean-up of the page could probably fix up the references. Furthermore, the argument that they were once notable, but no longer are now, doesn't really make sense. Recurring dreams 07:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Their ideas are generally total nonsense, but the group (even if it is now defunct) is plenty notable. Some of the news links seem to have gone dead (which is obviously common on wiki articles) but the group has been covered regularly in reliable sources. If that coverage now stops the group is still a matter of historical interest and the article still passes WP:N. Some of the sources cover only individuals affiliated with the group, but others (like the ABC article in footnote 16 and the Canada National Post article in footnote 27) cover the group itself. I would cut down some of the material on the individual people (if anything it's probably some of them who could be deleted, though others are probably notable) and eventually try to rewrite this thing in a more past-tense manner, as though reflecting back on historical events. Think about it this way. Nutty as these folks are, there are going to be books written about this group someday by objective historians (I would literally guarantee that--it's too juicy of a topic), and later generations will probably be fascinated to learn about the wacko conspiracy theory stuff going around after 9/11 (at which this group has been unquestionably at the forefront because they are "scholars"). It would be silly to not have an article on this group, and keeping it obviously does not connote any sort of endorsement of their ideas (the article is actually relatively objective--though not very good overall--and the lead paragraph points out very quickly that their ideas are not generally accepted). I'd also point out that the nominator apparently created their account literally a couple of hours ago and promptly came over to AfD this thing (which may or may not be cause for skepticism) and that his/her argument "harmful per BLP" does not seem to make sense since this is obviously not a biography of a living person. The question here is whether the group is notable enough and has been covered in reliable sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ah, I see reference 16 does discuss the group itself. But The Canadian National Post article only mentions the group to point out that two of its members attended a larger conference of conspiracy nuts, and doesn't say anything about the group beyond how many members it has. Perhaps this is barely notable, in and of itself. Someguy1221 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Soapboxing platform for fringe lunatic organization. With the passing of time, their lunacy is going the way of the Dodo anyway. If this isn't deleted, it needs to be trimmed down to a stub, akin to the The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization article, which is a more credible entity anyway, by a long shot.--MONGO 07:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree trimming down to short article (or possibly even a merge as suggested below) would be good. Even the dodo has an article though. :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 9/11 Truth Movement. Organisation definitely deserves a writeup thanks to notable media mentions, but not its own entry seperate from the rest of 9/11 Truth Movement. simxp (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional; we already have plenty of 911 conspiracy theory articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As time passes, it is becoming more and more obvious that this group is not notable enough to pass WP:ORG. We don't need articles on every person or group that ignores the facts and makes things up with regard to 9/11. Pablo Talk | Contributions 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This group doesn't pass WP:ORG, and there are significant WP:BLP problems with respect to the individuals the group is blaming. BLP problems don't always have to be about the subject of the article. --Charlene 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What are the specific BLP problems you find in this article? I just don't see it, as there do not seem to be any specific accusations against any specific person who was supposedly to blame for 9/11 according to this group.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are purported members whose membership ought to be sourced, and if they left the organization that ought to be included as well. Being named as a member of some organization like this is certainly "contentious" per BLP and needs to be reliably sourced. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a bit more sense, though I don't think that was at all the BLP problem Charlene was referring to (she mentioned "problems with respect to the individuals the group is blaming"). But even in the article it seems that there are sources for most of the individuals that demonstrate they were once affiliated with the group. So I'm not sure there is much of a BLP problem there, and even if there is for certain people (e.g. someone who is mistakenly on the list) that's something we can and must fix but does not really suggest we should delete the whole thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability does not expire and per bad faith nomination (check nom's contribs, only made two mainspace edits, can you guess where?). Whsitchy 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we wish to delete an article with 27 cited references, including one from the San Francisco Chronicle, we need a really good reason. I don't see one. YechielMan 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just please note that 3 of those references are to websites of the organization, and almost all of the rest only mention the group in passing, to point out that someone is a member. Someguy1221 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Further, the SF chronicle article only devotes a single sentence to this group. The rest of the paragraph proceeding from it discusses independent actions of the members. Someguy1221 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I maintain that much of this article has nothing to do with the group itself, and is poorly written (the critisisms and Current members sections in particular). The entire "Media Coverage and Works" section serves no point but to direct readers to the works of conspiracy nuts, with no explanation given that these are actually works of the group itself, and not independent works of its members. Notable or not, the article is in need of a rewrite. Once the AFD ends, I'll do that myself if its not deleted. Someguy1221 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn conspiracy-theory group. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They were notable once, and therefore remain notable. There are major news sources discussing the group specifically, such as whether or not they are all really scholars--AP, Washington Post, ABC news -- included in books-- what more could be wanted. I am pleased that they are no longer as noticeable as they were, but thats no reason to delete--its a reason to keep--we're an encyclopedia, and keep a record. DGG 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete into the vast number of other inane articles on the "Truthers". It's all covered elsewhere so merge=delete. They were a piece of the nutter history but they don't deserve their own aticle. Keeping it is undue weight. And the "N" in NPOV is "Neutral", not Nutball. --Tbeatty 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was asked to visit this by an email from User:Morton devonshire. The article is light on good references and it's on the cusp of notability. Overall, though, I think that it should not have its own article. Merge to 9/11 Truth Movement based on Wikipedia not being a soapbox among other things, failing which delete. Note this is not a keep vote, leaving aside contemplations as to whether it is in fact a vote at all. Stifle (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Those proposing rewriting or cleaning up, please read User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up and suggest who is going to carry out the cleanup. Stifle (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look a few comments above this--one user has already offered to do this. Anyway policy clearly says that articles which can be improved should be improved, not deleted. The fact that this does not always happen is annoying but I don't think it's a reason for deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability not established. --rogerd 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dubious notability. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through the articles references looking for RSes that might establish notability. (BTW, lots of those links are broken.) I found only 2 sources about the group, Canada Post, July 2006 and AP via ABC News, Aug 2006. Moreover, this group is defunct as of Dec 2006, having split into two. So I see no reason to have a separate article about it. OTOH, it should get appropriate coverage in the 9/11 Truth Movement, preferably in a separate section. CWC 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete now that Gamaliel has provided a much better RS for this group. (Pity it wasn't in the article!) I still suspect it would be better to cover this ex group wot 'as joined the choir invisibule as part of a longer article on the truther movement, for better context and less overall editing effort. CWC 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has got to be a joke. Anyone who is familiar with my work on the JFK articles knows that I am adamant about preventing WP from becoming a forum to promote conspiracy, but the fact is that many conspiracy authors and organizations are notable and have recieved mainstream coverage, like this front page article from the Chronicle of Higher Education. This is a no brainer. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The space given to this group is far in excess of what can be justified with even this modest historical perspective; as news stories have given way to sober reflection, sober reflection has essentially ignored these nutters (for obvious reasons). I would say the 15 minutes are up. As noted, the group was in any case short-lived and rapidly dissolved into factionalism - although to be fair the sources of the dispute (secret space-based energy weapons used to destroy the twin towers? you decide) almost persuades me that the thing should be kept so that anybody who thinks they are anything other than mad as badgers can be put right. Looks like someone's tinfoil hat slipped. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is soapboxing and undue weight for a non-notable group. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NPOV's undue weight clause. Give them a mention in one of the synthesis articles. Sandstein 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. --Aude (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no matter what beliefs the members of the group hold that does not change the fact that the group is notable and has received media coverage. --musicpvm 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Doesnt appear to be noteable. Dman727 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/or MergeStill meets notability standards, and I'm not convinced by the arguments to remove. They seem POV driven, instead of looking at policy with regard to notibility.Giovanni33 06:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have used Wikipedia for years but reading this today motivated me to sign up for an account and comment on this. I find it amazing that an organizaiton devoted to fostering grass roots understanding of truth and history would consider deleting this page about 9-11 scholars. These are substantial scholars, well-regarded in their fields, who have come forward to question the official story. One may not agree with their opinions or their research, but their work is certainly newsworthy and significant in itself as an example of grass roots efforts to contest official versions of history. This would be true even if every word of the offical 9-11 commission report were true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonomanightowls (talk • contribs) — Sonomanightowls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep not convinced by the arguments to remove which do seem POV driven — the argument of the proposer that they were once notable but not now, simply fails as every encyclopedia contains historical information. The allegation that "Sources are puffery meant to promote them via Wikipedia is not substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthana (talk • contribs) -- suspected Sockpuppet of Emnx
• Keep The points represented do not seem to fit according to policy/guidelines. There is an accusation made which no evidence seems to presented to merit, that somehow these articles are made to promote the people via Google page rankings. There is also a mention of it being harmful per BLP, this is an interesting point, however there are no links to the people on the page, stating they feel it is damaging to them, nor any discussions around this concept. Unfortunately some of the votes, seem to be overly hostile, calling those in the article "nutters" "mad as badgers" and a "fringe lunatic organization." An interesting discussion could be placed around BLP per Charlene, however Wikipedia has not found itself fit to delete articles on the KKK nor the Nazi party, so it seems what they believe is not subject to censorship via BLP. As for "we already have plenty of ... articles" I hope Wikipedia does not stop producing great articles, simply because they already have what they feel is plenty on the subject. After reviewing the sources, actually reading them, it seems this article should be kept, and does meet the criteria in Reliable Sources. --SixOfDiamonds 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since some felt necessary to attempt to be little my arguement by placing a SPA tag, let me clarify. I am not a "single purpose account" as that would require my account "to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." This however is simply my first edit. I was hoping to make more contributions in the line of Poker player articles, however they are well covered. Still look for interesting topics to contribute to. --SixOfDiamonds 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was not an attempt to belittle your argument, but merely to point out that you have made no edits outside this article, which is still true. Someguy1221 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NPOV is very immportant —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 02:33, 13 June 2007 (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.