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 (no consensus). — FireFox (UTC) 10:25, 28 May '06

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

DELETE - Simply, there is no claim to noteability. The article asserts no more noteability than the fact that it exists, and websites aren't entitled to articles simply because they exist. Does not meet WP:WEB. pm_shef 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is apparently a website. As such, does it meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RESPONSE - No, it does not. The criteria listed at WP:WEB are: "1)The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2)The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. 3)The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." To the best of my knowledge, it satisfies none of those. - pm_shef 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think you left out this part: 1) "... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles": :::http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=83698&ntpid=1

http://www.jungewelt.de/2006/02-02/037.php Rkrichbaum 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it gets a colossal amount of unique Google hits and appears to be notable at least in the internet community. Here's a sample article, for what it's worth. Aplomado ^talk 01:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no reliable sources describe the notability of the group -- wholly a construct of the blogosphere and a web operator. Violates WP:RS and WP:V Subsectionself-published sources in articles about themselves and WP:RS each say that blogs are never appropriate as secondary sources. Morton devonshire 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:V states "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" and "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:" (and then lists several provisions). Шизомби 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has been an owned article and is simply not a notable group. Google hits don't rank notability, only if their information was being published by reliable third party sources, and it isn't.--MONGO 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are there any reliable sources for information about this group other than the group itself? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This would seem to be (at least) the 3rd nomination not the 2nd AFAICS. 1st: February 2, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth; 2nd: February 25, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination). Also, there does appear to be hits for the group on Google news [1] Шизомби 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK I moved it to the 3rd nomination - should (can?) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination) be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2nd nomination)? Right now that latter one is a redirect to this AfD, the 3rd one. Шизомби 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Mass deletions of content seem to have been made to make this article appear more deletable. There are at least a few notable individuals who are members of the group. The whole 9/11 revisionism issue is a hot one, and I don't see why the encyclopedia would benefit from removing a reference to such a group. Dick Clark 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the page history demonstrates that all the notable information has been removed before the deletion tags have been placed. This group is notable based on previous entries in the page history. - Richardcavell 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article as it stands as no claim to noteability. - pm_shef 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a 9/11 revisionist article (I don't know of any). By themselves, this group is non-notable. Ted 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:29, 23 May 2006
• Delete NN and worthless. --Dakart 07:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, they've gotten some news mentions and have an online presence, but I didn't find any articles about the group itself in a major publication. Instead, they appear to be mentioned when a journalist needs a quote from the conspiracy side or, more commonly, when someone writes a commentary or a letter to the editor (sometimes written by the group itself). As others have suggested, an article about 9/11 revisionism might be good. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough. --Lambiam^Talk 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a relevant article about 9/11 conspiracy theories - Skysmith 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, not sure if this is worth an article, but it is evident that the current version has been reached through massive trimming of what appears to be a better article. Granted, even the less mutilated version needs massive work, but "needs work" is not equal to "delete". Merge sounds reasonable. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into any suitable article. --Terence Ong 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article was clearly vandalised before the deletion mention was put on. If you read passed entries in the history the article lists quite a few members a history etc. --Zer0faults 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The organisation is notable but this article is awful. And in the current political climate on wikipedia, no move to improve it will be tolerated by some POV pushing users and admins. Much better that it is deleted until wikipedians mature a little and a proper article can be written. Seabhcán 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does anyone else find it odd this article would come up for deletion after almost its entire contents had been removed including the published articles by proffesors? Links to radio shows removed, list of members etc. Oddly enough on of the members wiki page he is stated to be a member of this group yet, he was removed for it not being sourced. Who else would state its members other then the organization itself? I have reverted the article before the wholesale deltion of contents occured. --Zer0faults 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The organisation is clearly notable, is frequently mentioned in news articles (today hits on google news as well as yahoo news), was also described in the foreign press (e.g. Junge Welt, Germany, French articles). The organisation does not need Wikipedia to be known, but Wikipedia would loose content that is useful for the interested public. Efforts should be made, though, to keep certain users from vandalizing the article. Rkrichbaum 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 76,500 google hits and 15 hits in Google News.--Bill 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've certainly heard of this outside of WP, which says something anecdotal about its notability. -Jcbarr 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. Try telling that to the people at The game! THE KING 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge into 911 loonies article). And if it does stay, we should highlight fact that the group has only existed for a short while, and is only a tiny little group of tin pot wacko's dedicated to the propogation of useless conspiracy theories. At the moment the article exaggerates their importance, almost suggesting that they actually carry some weight. This must be corrected. THE KING 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--DCAnderson 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find almost no reliable secondary sources writing about this group. Absent those, we're left with repeating the group's own promotional material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look for reliable sources too hard. Plug "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" into Google and the returns (which number in the tens of thousands) include the following sources:

• [2]mirrored here (Discover the Network sources are cited in numerous articles on Wikipedia)
• [3] (Desert News seems notable enough as a source)
• [4] (Mention from Centre for Research on Globalization, which the WP community has thusfar deemed notable)
• [5] (United for Peace and Justice announcement where Fetzer is listed as founder of S9/11T)

Dick Clark 18:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Google search "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"
• Google news search "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"

I guess we all should examine the results, follow the links, and judge for ourselves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users need to keep in mind that the AfD states "no claim to noteability", which is what we are voting on, not if we agree or think they are sane, sorry hope that doesn't offend anyone. --Zer0faults 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just visited this link (which i have now removed from the article) titled 'Wikipedia: what it doesn't say'. From the website: "I have just spent several frustrating hours trying to revise and improve the entry on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", only to discover that my rewrites were being over-ridden by someone at Wikipedia." Bottom line: This guy is a POV pusher, trying to use wikipedia as a web server in an attempt to give credibility to his project that is looking more dubious the more i look into it. THE KING 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting that Fetzer created the article, or that he is inappropriately editing it? It seems to me that the latter claim shouldn't be grounds for deletion, but rather grounds for caution about POV-pushers lurking about. Dick Clark 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, and i agree that that in itself is no grounds for deletion. But it is a warning about POV-pushers, hence the comment. THE KING 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its even more harmless then that if you read the link listed, he was simply trying to add information to the article, albeit POV centric. However alot fo the information he tried to add that was removed is actually legitimate. Also this group obviously meets the popularity standard. The google hits alone show that. Also I used that link as a source cause Metzer himself is admitting to being in the group something one of the vandals who removed all the information repeatedly stated need citing as their member list needs to verified by a secondary source, which is pretty ludicrous assertion. --Zer0faults 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unverifiable. Pecher ^Talk 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Not scholars. Not the truth. --Tbeatty 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All but one of the members listed has a Ph.D. you dont get more scholarly then that. --Zer0faults 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course, only the first claim above is relevant to this discussion. Dick Clark 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - PLenty notable, google hits, MSNBC segment with Jones, etc. Strong Keep. TruthSeeker1234 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They're nuts, maybe, but notable. --UsaSatsui 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Hobbeslover 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dick Clark. --Shlomke 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - picks up over 6 million google hits. Definitely notable. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's about 81,300 if you search with quotes, as many results are irrelevant otherwise. There are supposedly only 186 results that are unique (go to the 18th page), but Google tends to break down when the number of unique links is above a hundred or so, so there may be many more. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep common sense shall prevail! FK0071a 06:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- so we can make way for the fourth nomination. SkeenaR 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP!- I really can't understand why should it be deleted.--Pokipsy76 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles about this group and there effort keeps comming in, with nearly a new entry a day. EyesAllMine 12:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That group exists, they publish a lot, have lectures and so. Eventually merge with 9/11 Truth Movement but this article is more specific. User:Macieksk 15:25, 24 May 2006 (GMT+1)
• Keep, of course. Google numbers show notability, and the first few hits from a Google news search finds articles or commentaries on them published in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, National Post, Canada, The Capital Times, WI, Tucson Weekly, AZ, etc etc., none of which are considered conspiracy blogs. Saying the afd is just because the article does not assert notability is disengenious. Not one of the first 15 articles I skimmed in Category:Organizations (All the "A"s) assert notability. Just because these people are kooks doesn't mean they're not notable. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unfortunately. The group is notable, although seriously misguided (IMHO) (The article should assert the group's notablility, though, which it doesn't, at present.) The assertion that the members are "scholars" in the lead may be POV, however. Due to my view in the first sentence, I cannot rewrite the lead to meet these requirements, but I'm sure it can be done. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. We've had enough of these now... 1652186 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: (First, it is puzzling to understand the post above. Second, there are two grade-6 level spelling mistakes in the proposed deletion post at the top. Do enclyclopedia makers claim to be literate?) Getting to the substance of the matter, there are over 87,000 Google hits for "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". Furthermore, a May 17/06 Zogby Poll finds that "Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support a New 9/11 Investigation". Over half the American public of voting age distrusts the 9/11 Commission Report and supports a new investigation of possible US Govenment involvement in the attacks. "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" represents an organized and authoritative segment of American voters who are seeking truth about the events of 9/11, and as such qualify for an entry in Wikipedia. --PureLogic 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some enclyclopedia makers may cllaim be be literalate, but methinks they just guzzled too many high-plotency dlinks and now are inebrialated. --Lambiam^Talk 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Much of the support to delete articles on this subject, see also [6], is obviously intended as censorship. The language used to describe the advocates of the article; ‘crackpots’, ‘loonies’, ‘conspirators’, ‘worthless’, ‘tin pot wackos’, etc., shows strong subjective bias. ‘Not Notable’ entries ignore the tens of thousands of hits on Google, proving this article outranks many other articles found here. Most impressively notable is the recent Zogby poll [7] which demonstrates extremely strong public interest. Isn’t it the purpose of Wikipedia to provide information for those who wish to learn more about a subject at hand? Does it not degrade Wikipedia to allow censorship by those who simply do not subscribe to certain views on a subject? If people aren’t interested, or don’t want to learn about this subject, they can simply bypass it. But those who are interested should find it here. After all, who needs reference material that disallows controversial subject matter?--Kolateral 05:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excellent point. And to add to it, a lot of the initiative to close down this page and other controversial pages like it, seems to be coming from those who look to the mainstream media for what is true and authoritative. It is useful to remember that much of that media is owned by huge corporate interests. For example, GE, one of the world's largest munitions manufacturers, owns NBC. And the Carlyle Group, also a munitions investor, and with whom the Bush family has strong ties, has a huge contract to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq after those munitions companies have made a fortune blasting it to hell, on the pretext of WMD. So as far as trusting mainstream to give a full and balanced picture, remember the vested interests behind the media, and also the fact that the only unifying voice that objective and concerned citizens really have is the Internet. So let's not knock the groups they form there too much. They are not crackpots until proven so, which is why a proper 9/11 inquiry is needed. Let's have some respect here, and recognize their existence on the people's democratic Wikipedia.--PureLogic 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it Communism. Dick Clark 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge not encyclopedic, POV soapbox? Wombdpsw 05:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The people involved seem "notable" enough, and it's obviously verifiably real, not original research and not complete nonsense, so the nomination doesn't conform with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Also, the fact that it's AFD number three smells of bad faith and/or sour grapes. --Centauri 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to other articles on theorists. Media coverage section doesn't have any bluelinks. Andjam 09:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the Media Coverage section does have at least a few blue links (or names that are wikilinked previously in the article). Dick Clark 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as per nom and as per Pecher --Strothra 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Comment"" The sheer number of Wikipedians voting here is evidence of notability. TruthSeeker1234 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's evidence that several people have been browsing the AfD list. --Strothra 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Rkrichbaum, Asbestos, Dick Clark, Zer0faults and Rkrichbaum. Notability has been abundantly established. —204.42.17.151 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete conspiracy cruft.  Grue  07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per nom and as per Pecher. San Saba 13:14, 27 May 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.