Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Citizens Watch

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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Citizens Watch

This is a procedural relisting, the page was restored after a contested WP:PROD deletion. Original prod reason was "Non-notable fringe site, fails WP:WEB". Delete unless independent sources show that the site meets WP:WEB. Kusma (討論) 12:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment' here is notability: "The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demand the resignation of Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission." - New York Times, 3/20/2004 mirror --Striver 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• I just added a source from Zogby. Zogby + NYT = notable.--Striver 13:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• "911citizenswatch.org" gets 35 100 Ghits, 256 unique. --Striver 13:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also, found this on Scoop --Striver 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and by the way, this is not priamrily a website, so WP:WEB is not applicable.--Striver 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: No evidence whatever that anyone other than the members and author have heard of the organization. The references inside the article are to fact claims and to already-convinced groups. Furthermore, the report "will be released" in the future. Let's wait to see how much of a ripple that makes before we explain this group to an incurious world. Geogre 14:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Report already released, see article again. The Christian Science Monitor refering to it: [1] --Striver 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Two time congresswoman Cynthia McKinney participiated in their event. --Striver 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --BaronLarf 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So, that is a keep? Nom says "unless independent sources show [notability]", and it has done that for the group. --Striver 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just added a PBS source. --Striver 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And C-Span. Can we have a speedy keep, notability is no longer a question.--Striver 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep ST47 16:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom Artw 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Washington Times also added. Do i smell bias? --Striver 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

All I see is this Kyle Hence guy occasionally manaeuvering himself into a position where he;s able to give a jopurnalist a tiny quote. I'm not particularly impressed by that as proof of notability for the organisation. Artw 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — per Striver Computerjoe's talk 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver. Full of delicious reliable sources now. Drett 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with user Drett. Angelbo 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - enough sources to live with, with mentions in major dailies and the piece in the CSM that gives a fair amount of copy to the group. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gazpacho 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver. —Michael Hays 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with multiple, independent mentions in major media. Fairsing 04:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This organization is one of the key early organizations in the 9/11 Truth movement and continues to be a strong contributor - notable and historical. bov 23:27, 23 August 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.