Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Whitewash Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Whitewash Commission

POV fork of 9/11 Commission, whose thin excuse for existence is the use of a pejorative name. Another product of...g'wan, guess. Calton | Talk 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POV? Since when is "pov" a criteria for deleteting? Maybe you mean you dont agree with the term? Try Great Satan and Little Satan, they are as much "pov" or "pov fork" as this, that is not at all. --Striver 06:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It is POV because it concerns an ideosyncratic non-topic, acting effectively as a vehicle for promoting a particular point of view. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No, the article is not notable by "world" standard, but the article is notable for the group using it. How notable is Khums, Sayyid or Mujtahid for you? Not a pov fork, this is about a term used in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Its just as much of a pov fork as Allah is a pov Fork to God and Jehova. When determining the notability of a term, do it in its context, you dont determine the nobatility of Foul ball in the world context, i have never heard of it before, but it is notbale in its own context.--Striver 06:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you making the point that Islam is comparable to a fringe conspiracy theory? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Striver, I see your point regarding its usage and POV, but I don't know that in this case who is using it justifies notability. Not every slang term by the 9/11 critics is notable because they're using it. I have to go with Delete, given what you've posted so far, though the article isn't bad. It's just not notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neologism. dbtfztalk 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per neologism and fork.--Jersey Devil 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork and presumably covered already in the 911 Truth Movement article anyway. 23skidoo 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. It may not be, but I'd like to see some more mainstream or reliable sources. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Article admits it's both neologism and jargon. Funny name, though! Peter Grey 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
neologism? Hmm... didnt think about that one... I would have asked for opinions before creating, i hadn't forgoten about that. How new must a expresion be to be counted as a neolgism? Im pretty confident that i can find sourced for it dating to at 2002 or so... Anyone knows? --Striver 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Which notable people would those be? --Calton | Talk 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I know it mentions Alex Jones: I asked you to name some notable people it mentions. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cute. --Hyperbole 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a problem distinguishing between singular and plural uses? According to you, "some notable people" = one person, Alex Jones, who fails on all three words, unless you utter sentences such as "A notable people came to my door last night and sold me some Girl-Scout cookie." --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork, conspiracy cruft. Proto||type 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and mention the term in main article per Hyperbole. ProhibitOnions 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • stabbity POV fork in the face. If you didn't get it, that means delete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the author knows we already have an article about the commission, and one about Jones. Gazpacho 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unambiguously, and the very definition of, a WP:POVFORK. Esquizombi 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork as per many others. --Deville (Talk) 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All you guys, could you explain to me how this is a pov fork, while Great Satan is not? No? You cant? I guessed so. Thanks for voting in accordance to Wikipedia policies, and not with feeling and opinions in the first hand. --Striver 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment Perhaps Great Satan is one also. In any case, it is far more widespread in usage over both time and space. Please remember Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith even when it is difficult. Esquizombi 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because "Great Satan" is an phrase used by the national leadership of a major state repeatedly over two decades, while "9/11 Whitewash Commission" had been used once by a single "investigative journalist" (read: conspiracy theorist). Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"Only once"?!--Striver 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes...so far as I can tell from the article, there has been exactly one meaningful instance (along with however many blog posts) in which the term was employed. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The article gives transcript to Jones using it on the CNN show, and gives an audio of a caller using it, and also Jones using it again after the caller used it firest. The term is used all over the place--Striver 04:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • To my way of thinking, this is absolutely not a POV fork; people are playing fast and loose with that term. A POV fork occurs when someone can't get their edits accepted on a page so they create another one for those edits - say, their belief that John Kerry is a Martian keep getting reverted on John Kerry, so they create the article Viewpoint that John Kerry is a Martian. That's a POV fork. This article doesn't exist to sneak information on the 9/11 commission through the back door that way; this article exists to point out the fact that some people are calling it a Whitewash Commission. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out, just not something that necessitates an entire article. --Hyperbole 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, wrong. It would be like creating articles at Tricky Dick, Slick Willy, or Chimpy McFlightsuit as a repository for whatever garbage some political axe-grinders would to put up -- which is, of course, exactly what's happening here. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • If an article was created that said "Tricky Dick is a nickname for Richard Nixon," that would not constitute a POV fork. And, as you can see, Tricky Dick is a redirect to a page that informs you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon. Tricky Dick would only constitute a POV fork if it was a new article with new content about Nixon - especially if it was content that consensus had deemed to be unworthy of inclusion in Richard Nixon. --Hyperbole 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • And, as you can see, Tricky Dick is a redirect to a page that informs you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon. Lovely bit of misdirection there: it was ORIGINALLY a page that informed you that the term is a nickname for Richard Nixon, but was quickly (and rightly) changed to List of United States Presidential nicknames -- as was Slick Willy, which WAS originallty a redirect to Bill Clinton: that's precisely the point. The article in question is precisely NOT doing anything resembling redirecting, and, per your analog with Nixon, is precisely a new article with new content about the 9/11 Commission, so by your own definition, a POV fork. And as for redirecting, Slick Willy doesn't redirect to Bill Clinton and Chimpy McFlightsuit doesn't redirect to George W. Bush: the reasons should be plainly obvious, but, frankly, I despair that it isn't for you. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The reason that the original Tricky Dick article was changed to a redirect to List of United States Presidential nicknames is exactly the same reason that I'm suggesting that this one line "article" on the "9/11 Whitewash Commission" be merged into National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - there's not enough content in pointing out that X is a nickname for Y to justify an entire article. POV doesn't even enter into the equation; there's no POV difference between informing you that X is a nickname for Y and redirecting you somewhere where you are informed that X is a nickname for Y. --Hyperbole 18:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've always wondered what would happen if one relied solely on Alex Jones for their news. Now I know. Rhobite 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Could we at least make the appearance of observing WP:NPA? --Hyperbole 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right. God forbid we should libel someone with the charge that they get all their news from Alex Jones. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see any point behind your sarcasm. Yes, Calton, we should avoid making the baseless charge that any user here gets his or her news from a single source. --Hyperbole 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The sarcasm is because I can't convincingly roll my eyes in cyberspace -- and given the general tenor of your comments, they'd be apt to roll all the way into the next city, anyways, So, a general accusation of single-source news consumption is a form of personal attack? Somehow, I don't think that was the thought that prompted your original comment. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, making an unfounded accusation that someone's personal beliefs are the result of a limited exposure to news is a form of personal attack - and totally unnecessary on an afd page. That's obvious. --Hyperbole 18:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Self explanatory - Hahnchen 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as protologism. POV is not the issue and this isn't a POV fork per se in my opinion. There is no evidence of general usage of this term however.--Isotope23 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, neologism, non neutral point of view, take your pick. Cool3 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cool3, I pick non-notable and neologism. This does not deserve its own article. Gwernol 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is essentially useless. Allemannster 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A couple of Alex Jones references does not make a new word. -- Samir (the scope) 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is nothing but an entry for a dictionary of political slang. Non-notable. Warrants a single line in the 9/11 Truth Movement article, at best. Ande B. 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above abakharev 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this misuse of Wikipedia resources to POV push.--MONGO 14:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We already have 9/11 Truth Movement, 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Commission. I understand hyperbole's point but this particular term (unlike Tricky Dick) is not notable enough to keep even as a blank redirect. Thatcher131 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Hyperbole --The Walrus 03:29, 1 April 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_9_11_Whitewash_Commission_ccd8.html"