Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalee Grable

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 both Tizio 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosalee Grable and Hologram Theory

Rosalee Grable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hologram Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Also nominating her theory, Hologram Theory, as 9/11 conspiracy cruft. This person does not seem to be notable - for a conspiracy theorist she does rather poorly with 2270 hits on Google, most of which are to conspiracy sites and blogs, no independent coverage. Opabinia regalis 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The Hologram Theory article has more content now. Feel free to change your nominations from Delete to Keep, Strong Keep, or Speedy Keep. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article does not meet speedy keep requirements.--Rosicrucian 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Both. Conspiracy Cruft. NauticaShades 09:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tom. Tbeatty 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think you can combine the two AfD's on one page like this. It's not just 'her' theory. There are scores of researchers who subscribe to the Hologram Theory. Please see this page, for instance. Hologram Theory She had nothing to do with this page. This 'dual nomination page' is highly improper! It's the equivalent to nominating 'Isaac Newton' AND 'Gravity' for AfD on the same page. I think it important to note that I don't believe in this theory - not one bit - but I don't believe in the 'conspiracy theory' of Santa Claus either - and Santa has an article on Wiki. - F.A.A.F.A 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Santa Claus is a mass hallucination of millions upon millions of children worldwide. This is a non-notable theory within a small field filled with paranoids. Don't try and compare the two. Delete both. humblefool® 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"mass hallucination" ?! Who's paranoid? - F.A.A.F.A. 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• On Ms. Grable's notability: "Rosalee Grable, one of the best researchers on the Sept 11 Videos has done a number of frame-by-frame analyses of the WTC2 plane footage, with video image enhancement to highlight the details." See - F.A.A.F.A 01:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation is to 911review.org, an advocacy site which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. MCB 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• On The Theory : "Phil Jayhan prominently features this evidence (Hologram Theory) on his website, and it has generated a huge amount of interest, often from within the government according to his site's logs. Phil did a lot of cold-calling to offices of congresscritters and senators to publicize these results, and was often met with honest surprise and interest by the staffers." See - F.A.A.F.A 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation is to 911review.org, an advocacy site which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. MCB 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not really a serious article. Yet more apparent trolling by resident trouble-maker User:NBGPWS aka F.A.A.F.A aka Fairness And Accuracy For All. Morton Devonshire^Yo 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Both are sourced exactly the same, and both completely lack reliable sources outside of conspiracy sites. Because a theory or researcher is notable amongst conspiracy theorists does not make it notable to the world at large. Beyond that, nominating related articles, even whole families of them, is established practice.--Rosicrucian 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - doesn't seem notable, besides when Alex Jones thinks a conspiracy theory is full of crap you really have to wonder how serious it is GabrielF 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Lacks reliable sources and thus verifiability. --MCB 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not finding any mainstream references to her in database of 4000 publications. Edison 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Tbeatty took it upon himself to move some of the discussion to the Talk Page - F.A.A.F.A. 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Brimba 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No notable, quite off the chart as a matter of fact, and the only sources to state notability are not passing under WP:RS. The theory is just out there as well, I mean stop already, not everyone that has a new idea needs to get an article. We have articles on the prevelant, tested, notable ones, like controlled demolition, but whats next John Smith says aliens did it ... ? --NuclearZer0 14:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nomination. - Crockspot 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge ~Grable into H-Theory, then merge that into a suitable 9/11 conspiracy theory article. In this way two fact-light articles are removed, but an audit trail is left for future researchers wanting to look up either. -- Simon Cursitor 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Not notable. Just another in a series of garbage articles meant to disrupt Wikipedia (imo). Jinxmchue 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious allegation. Do you have any evidence to back this up ? -- Simon Cursitor 08:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FAAFA has a lengthy record of disruptive behavior under his current and former (i.e. NBGPWS) usernames. Putting a pig in a dress doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig. Jinxmchue 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Which, with respect, violates assume good faith. By your argument, once someone has made an edit with which the cabal disagree, every edit they make thereafter is assumed to be vandalic. As stated above, I agree the articles need concatenation, but not that they are "intended to disrupt" (your words, not mine) -- Simon Cursitor 08:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One edit, no. A series of edits, yes. Also, his comments elsewhere reveal his true intentions regarding WP. I would love nothing more than to assume good faith in regards to FAAFA, but the evidence I have now cannot allow me to do that. I am certainly open to changing my mind and will do so if I see evidence to support that decision. Jinxmchue 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both as nominated. Wow, and I thought David Copperfield was good with his magic tricks. And now, for my next trick, watch this cruft disappear… JungleCat talk/contrib 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Against deleteinstead: allowing Rosalee Grable to update her entry, since this is an outdated entry based on 2003/04 research, see also http://www.911tvfakery.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ewing2001 (talk • contribs) . — ewing2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge or Against Delete there is no reason this shouldn't be a subject for study. Grable has compared thousands of clips and has a large on-line archive. The fact that only "conspiracy" sites know about her makes sense considering her subject matter. If others knew of her, it wouldn't be disputed nor in that category. Wikipedia itself has been accused of being a conspiracy site. So the label itself does not mean something is unworthy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megshead (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC). — Megshead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete both as nominated. Not only is this non-notable and I've never even heard of this outside of wiki. Just a comment - Holograms? Wow..thats pretty out there. Dman727 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Strothra 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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.