Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Truth Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus, after ignoring invalid votes by new users and anons. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Truth Movement

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This suffers from the same faults as the recently-deleted 7/7 Truth Movement, which is to say that there does not seem to be any evidence that this movement actually exists. (As one user says on the talk page, " Every time I stumble across this article, I'm confused about just what exactly is the "Movement"?") The article cites numerous books by various authors, speeches by various politicians, studies by various academics, protests by various groups, and even famous individuals such as Charlie Sheen and Larry Flynt. What it does not cite is any evidence that these people belong to any common organisation, or even that they are in sympathy with each other. This article appears to be very carefully written, constructed to give the impression of impartiality, while in its very existence it promulgates the idea of a single "movement". As such, it violates Wikipedia guidelines on original research and opinion. The most notable groups and individuals questioning the official 9/11 narrative are listed at the category "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks". In making this nomination, I am explicitly not questioning the validity of questioning the American government's description of the events surrounding 9/11, but I am urging the community to delete this specific misleading article. Vizjim 10:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Either keep or merge it with the article "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks" (maybe as a re-direct) but Do Not delete it. If it is merged or re-directed, then all of this information should be in the "Alternative theories" entry (maybe a sub-section of that page can be called "9/11 Truth Movement" and all of this information can be copied accross.). Personally, I'd like to keep it though. FK0071a 11:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Question, I can find the category [1] but not an article Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks, where are you sugesting merge to?--blue520 11:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Answer I guess it should be these:
  • 9/11 conspiracy theories and possible some references in the two below:
  • Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
  • People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report FK0071a 12:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Note - the following articles are listed in that category: 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, 9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is in Your Hands, 9/11 conspiracy theories, 911 In Plane Site, Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert), Loose Change (video), Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up. In addition, we have Amateur investigators researching the 2001 anthrax attacks, The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report and People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. The useful content of this article is largely replicated across these already. Vizjim 12:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep information on the alternative theories, and information about notable theorists, but fundamentally, there is no movement. There's an un-aligned collection of individuals, and as broad a spread of individual opinions on what actually happened. Once that's done, the category, and the three pages listed above as Answer, will provide the agglomerative function of this page. -- GWO
  • Delete misleading article, redundant with 9/11 conspiracy theories, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report, and Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. gidonb 12:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, content fork of / redundant with 9/11 conspiracy theories, nothing really useful to merge. Sandstein 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per gidonb. --mtz206 14:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination of Vizjim, who is undoubtedly one of my favorite editors in these AfD votes. -- Kicking222 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conglomeration of people with similar beliefs is not a "movement" --Mmx1 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A group of people with similar beliefs can be a movement. See e.g. Civil rights movement, Peace movement and other Social movements. To require a movement to be an actual organization such as the American Indian Movement strikes me as unreasonable. Шизомби 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • valid point, but perhaps we need to apply a standard for notability as a movement. certainly, the civil rights and other "movements" have been referred to as such by reliable sources. Can the same be established for the 9/11 Truth Movement? --mtz206 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. For me, the sole real requirement of a movement is that it is moving in a definable direction. According to this article, half of the 9/11 Truth Movement believes there were no terrorists, half believe there were but the government helped them. Half are communists, half are right-wingers. Half want a Congressional enquiry, half want a revolution... you get the picture. I don't think this is a question of notability, just existence. Vizjim 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Movements can have fairly diverse beliefs and goals. The Civil rights movement encompassed MLK and Malcolm X. The Pro-life movement/Anti-abortion movement encompasses people opposed to ending all life (fetus or adult) and those who would bomb abortion clinics. I can't really speak for the 9/11 truth movement, but the unifying belief seems to be a desire for more information about 9/11 than is currently available, not conspiracy theories about what happened (although that defines a segment of the movement). I think it's reasonable to expect that sources other than WP refer to it as a movement. If not, that may mean the article should be retitled and/or refocused, not necessarily deleted, although that could be an option. An Amazon.com search brings up 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies and 9/11 Revealed : The Unanswered Questions using the phrase, though these would all seem to be ones written from advocates for it. Google books also brings up Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and A Real 9/11 Commission. Google scholar[2] and Google news[3] turn up hits too. Шизомби 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, they all seem to want us to link to their wedsites. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In 10 years none of these crackpots will be anything more than a historical footnote. To even try and list them here is to lend them far more credibility than they deserve. --Bachrach44 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Or maybe it will be like the Berlin Wall: it seemed so permanent, right up until the day it just suddenly fell. Now, 17 years later, "of course" we collaborate with the Russians on shuttle launches, etc. But in this future one envisions a cult of people who still believe in the official story, something like Holocaust denial reborn. Maybe there will be a desire to delete wikipedia pages about them, to sanitize the future politics, keep it neat and orderly. I won't be among those folks. Kaimiddleton 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete But move to wikiinfo. Think about it for a second. The arguments against 9/11 depend on taking a lot of isolated events and putting them together to form a cohesive "plot". The author of this article does the same thing by connecting the sceptic's actions to make them into a "movement. Terrific analysis via. the use of irony. wikiinfo is the closest we can come to wikieditorial. 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate keep, notable crank theorists. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While all the separate ideas in the article may be notable and verifiable, there is no evidence that these things are linked to the subject. Kevin 01:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The best argument for the existence of this 'movement' is that it has a page on Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least merge. There's no actual organiztion calling themselves the "9/11 Truth Movement" that I can see, but it is constantly referred to and discussed. Exactly 10,800,000 Google hits. That seems notable. Maybe a rewrite? Or something. SkeenaR 02:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP! the towers and building 7 had 10 characteristics of controlled demolition, deleting this=an insult to the victims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.67.183 (talk • contribs)
  • Above anon user's first post [4]--DCAnderson 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Deleting this has nothing to do with how the 9/11 events happened, or who was responsible. That is covered already in the fifteen articles (and one category) that are linked above. No actual data will be lost if this article is deleted. Please read the preceding discussion, including the nomination, before voting.
  • Delete. Yes, wikipedia should write about theories about the September 11 attacks and those who promote them, but this article does not help in creating an encyclopedia. Andjam 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. 1652186 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Is this delete/keep process intended to be a show of hands? If so, it is obviously open to abuse, and won't produce reasonable results. 'Delete per above' doesn't really clarify much.--Kolateral 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh yes, finally someone with balls to delete an article about this non-notable (and probably non-existent) "organization". Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for every political rant. Completely non-encyclopedic. Morton devonshire 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, same standard as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7/7 Truth Movement applies, so don't introduce US-centric systemic bias by keeping it. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DONT DELETE THIS! the 9/11 truth movement is maybe a difficult thing to define but you have to be extremely stupid to believe in the official story presented for sept 11th as its scientifically impossible.its all a coverup of the highest order, if it wasnt then why would the commission report state lies about towers 1 and 2's construction.stating it was a hollow shaft! this is not true! it had 47 huge steel central columns that bore the majority of the weight, these were destroyed by internal explosives by those who STAND TO BENEFIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.67.183 (talk • contribs) (again)
  • Keep, but merge from researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Wikipedia should be covering the people behind the conspiracy theories as well as the theories themselves. The number of people outraged at this perceived deception is notable. LWizard @ 06:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Name is misleading, even if sometimes used. Alternatively, merge TO researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, if any verifiable material can be found. (Again, this has to do with the verifiability of the assertion that the people questioning the orthodox 9/11 theories form a "movement", or even talk to each other, rather than the verifiability or falsifiability of the theories themselves.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Basically a POV fork off of 9/11 conspiracy theories and/or researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Page exists only to list random people or groups that "question 9/11".--DCAnderson 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Googling "9/11 Truth Movement" brings up 87,000 hits. If we delete this entry, then it would be necessary to delete any other movement or group which has less presence on the Internet. Also, the 6th ranked hit of those 87,000 is the Wikipedia entry, "9/11 Truth Movement". This means that Wikipedia is the 6th most popular place to check it out, and that people rely heavily on the entry. Please also note that the 9/11 Truth Movement has formally organized groups of people from various countries, walks of life, and especially, those who were directly impacted, including families. There is also a veteran's 9/11 truth group. As a movement, they hold local and national meetings within the United States and in other countries. It would be an insult to all these people to not respect them as belonging to a movement, which they claim to do, in the Wikipedia. Their meetings should probably be organized under a link, Meetings, at the Wikipedia entry to satisfy doubts regarding same.--PureLogic 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That the Wikipedia entry is high up the list is not necessarily positive and can actually be a negative point when it comes to supporting an article's usefulness. Wikipedia is the number one reference for any number of low-rent porn actors, unheard of neologisms and class projects, a fact that is often remarked upon shortly before they are cast into the pits. The question is should this topic be on Wikipedia - if yes, then of course we want this to be an important place for people to read about it, but the visibility of Wikipedia means we have to cut out unnacceptable content or risk losing credibility. Deizio talk 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Self promoting.--MONGO 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, collection of random people. Dr Zak 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The Peace movement is also a random collection of people. This doen't not prevent it from being a movement. Googling finds widespread use of this term. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'll build on my sentiments and repeat my question noted above: while many historical movements also represent a loose group of people, they have gained such notability/notoriety as a "movement" mostly due to media and popular culture calling them a "movement." Can the same be established for the 9/11 Truth Movement? Does the mainstream media or the average person on the street recognize that there is such a thing as the 9/11 Truth Movement? --mtz206 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The 9/11 truth movement's common goal is to question the official account (which is the media account) of what happened on 9/11. According to Princeton University's WordNeta lexical database for the English language"movement" may be defined as "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals". The American Heritage Dictionarydefines "movement" as " "an organized effort by supporters of a common goal". The 9/11 truth movement has held many national and international meetings since 2002, with a common goal to answer the many and disturbing questions which were not addressed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore it would be an act of censorship for Wikipedia to deny this entry in the encyclopedia.--PureLogic 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The so-called movement, according to this article, have no common ideology. They have no common goals. They share a scepticism about official accounts, but for wildly differing reasons. The example of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X given above demonstrates this - they may have had wildly differing personal beliefs and ways of achieving their goals, but they also shared a common drive towards a more equal society, where "black" did not mean "second class". The people gathered together in this article do not share a clear perception of the current state of affairs, or a common goal (at least according to the article), and they are not working together to acheive anything. The 9/11 truth movement, as a formal organisation, does not exist and has not held a single national or international meeting since 2001. Specific groups have. It is an example of the original research bias of this article that these groups are being lumped together as a non-existent movement, when some of them deserve their own articles, and some are just, if you'll excuse the term, a couple of loons with a photocopier and/or access to email. All verifiable information on individual groups from this article should be kept in some form or another, just not in this one, POV-pushing place. Vizjim 08:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion seems to have boiled down to whether or not the collection of groups, individuals, and researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 can be called a movement. Crucially, if the definition of 'Movement' is judged by the community to be misleading then should the article be deleted, or should the term 9/11 truth movement be renamed to use more clearly defined terms, such as 9/11 truth demographic? 81.156.195.227 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's just silly. How do people talk: "The rank-and-file among protesters are becoming more interested in the 9/11 truth movement." Or: "The rank-and-file among protesters are becoming more interested in the 9/11 truth demographic." This is a widely recognized term, much like "mass media". Let's call a spade a spade. Kaimiddleton 17:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Belive me when I say that I understand the anger at the massive POV pushing by some users who follow this movement here. I've had to deal with alot of it and am quite frankly tired of some administrators who do nothing to stop it because of fear of "looking like a bad guy" because the users are organized here and would gang up on them calling them "unfair". But this, unlike the "7/7 Truth Movement", actually has some backing in the U.S. and does name itself by the name "truth movement" which in my honest opinion does not make the title "POV". If the administrators and users actually want to do something about the mass POV pushing in 9/11 articles, instead of deleting articles that reasonably deserve a page on Wikipedia they should demand that admins do something about the revert wars/POV pushing that goes on in every single 9/11 article on wikipedia. Not just warnings and reverts but actual blocks and bans for POV pushing and refusal to adhere to the consensus. Otherwise we'll be at this forever.--Jersey Devil 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes! I am a professional librarian with 30 years' experience serving the medical community, the last ten of which were Internet-based. Knowledge workers, including dictionary and encyclopedia makers, refer to "inclusion criteria" as guidelines for what is relevant or non-relevant to a particular topic. I am astounded and appalled that after working for an hour or two to make an evidence-based submission to these pages, I find that a "POV/original research" judgement can be applied to my work to demolish it with a single stroke of the pen. If the administrators continue to allow this to happen on Wikipedia, the encylcopedia will lose its well-earned international reputation AND the particpation of experienced people who have built that reputation and whose time should not be wasted by capitulation to the "POV/original research bullies". --PureLogic 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please re-read my post. I am not siding with you and I would appreciate it if you did not make assumptions about my views on this.--Jersey Devil 03:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The most casual investigation is enough to show that this, in fact, is a grassroots 'movement'. This movement does have a diversity of points of view, but they all coalesce around an underlying conviction that the truth, far from being properly revealed, seems to be purposely hidden. Considering the immense change brought to our ‘post 911 world’, the truth about that day must be made plain and clear. The 911 Commission Report did more to raise questions than to answer them. Now, as more government secrecy and apparent deception comes to light each day, large numbers of people demand answers. All the elements of a ‘movement’ are therefore present; there’s a focus, a welling of popular interest, and a resistance by authorities to satisfy this search for truth. --Kolateral 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the above edit is the user's first contribution to Wikipedia. [5]--Jersey Devil 03:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a genuine (and growing) movement. Gets very large results on search engines, so the term is obviously in use quite a bit. The fact that the movement isn't unified by a single, narrow political orientation is indicative of the breadth of skepticism directed against the official 9/11 theory. --Serpent-A 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons given above, and also because the title is irrevocably POV by implying that the "truth" is something other than the official version. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no need to have an official organization to be called a "movement". It's not clear what kind of "evidence" would be required according to the deletion request.--Pokipsy76 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Versions other than the official one should definatly be recorded. Quite a lot of people think in the way refered to by the article, surely this classifies it as a "movement".Merging it with "9/11 conspiricies" would posibly make it easier to navigate. -- Tamroonii 10:57, 23 May 2006
    • Comment above user's first contribution to Wikipedia. [6]--Jersey Devil 10:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This movement exists definately. So many pages, videos, even official webpages. Google User:Macieksk 12:23, 23 May 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment above user's first contribution to Wikipedia. [7] The username he cites, if it is actually his, has 4 edits in total all made in 2005. [8]--Jersey Devil 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That post was actually made by User:83.6.240.175 and not User:Macieksk.[9]--DCAnderson 12:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That post was made by Macieksk - i just didn't log on, you can check now. It's true I don't edit much, but i read a lot.User:Macieksk 15:20, 24 May 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep the exact phrase has 126,000 google hits and 10 google news hits. This article would be a good place into which to merge all the other redundant articles.--Bill 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There definately is a movement out there as there has been many protests in the United States about it and its not uncommon to see 9/11 truth signs at peace demonstrations. Also according to a recent Zogby poll 42% of Americans believe in some type of government coverup. -- Jade P. 21:04, 23 May 2006 (EST)
first post from above anon user[10][11]--DCAnderson 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The movement is growing by the minute and does indeed exist. This page contains its history and key events which cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. Congress people have been involved, scientists, educators, political parties, actors, columnists, etc. and increasingly so over time. This is certainly a movement and whether the people on here agree or not, it exists and has a history and continues to grow. With the recent release of the Pentagon videos, and the new Zogby polls, interest is rising as never before. The movement has been defined both by its events, its publications and its media coverage over time. bov 01:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "This page contains its history and key events which cannot be found anywhere else on the internet". In other words....it's original research? --Mmx1 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that a number of people active in the movement have contributed to presenting the facts of the history on this page, to work together toward a comprehensive coverage of the significant events, publications and activists. Most individual groups promote their own events and don't spend the time to compile a history of the efforts of the entire movement, although some have made good efforts[12],[13],[14]. bov 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are saying the page itself is 'original research'?? If so, then each wikipedia page is also 'original research' since they don't exist anywhere else in their wikipedia form -- they are each created by interested parties and derived from real events, the same as this page is. bov
  • Keep - This is a very real movement. A simple Google search shows the existence and notability of the movement. It is difficult not to conclude the desire to remove the WP article is anything more than an attempt to impose a political view that wishes the 9/11 Truth Movement did not exist. —204.42.24.32 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You'd be wrong: in the lst couple of days I have voted to keep or merge other 9/11 movement articles. Read the nomination: I explicitly state that I am not questioning the validity of interrogating the official version of 9/11. Look at my edits, and you won't find the sort of political POV-pushing that you suggest. Please assume good faith. This article is nonsense - the idea of intelligently questioning official reports is not. Vizjim 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - We are at a crossroads now. Half the nation believes in the official story and half the nation doesn't- for exact figures see the latest Zogby Poll results at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421. There is an enormous attempt to drown out the most serious issues raised by the 9-11 Truth Movement with Straw Men attacks, disinformation, and of course heavily subsidized propaganda pieces produced cooperatively by the government and corporate interests. We don't know how long it will take for the 9-11 Truth Movement to come of age, but according to Bill Moyer's MAP of the Eight Stages of Social Movements, so well articulated in his book- Doing Democracy http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3694, we are entering Stage Four- The Take Off Stage. After years of activism, street demonstrations, organizing, the mainstream television network news is interviewing 9-11 Truth activists on the evening news, and we are being featured on the front pages of newspapers. Another major international 9-11 Truth Conference will be held in Chicago June 2-4th. All social movements pave the way for those to come and build upon the work of those before them. Humanity has never been faced with so many serious problems; the Truth Movement's experiences/history will help the movements that follow it, if humanity is to learn, evolve, survive and thrive.``Carol Brouillet
  • In other words, you believe that the article should exist so that a particular POV can be pushed. Read the nomination: no information will be lost by deleting this article. Vizjim 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, absolutely - The term "9/11 Truth Movement" covers any group of people who question the official story of 9/11. It does not signify a particular organization, such as the "9/11 Truth Alliance" or "From the Wilderness". An organization such as ANSWER might have a faction that is interested in promoting the "9/11 Truth Movement". This is a term of discourse that is widely used. I can do a wikipedia search for Peace movement or List of literary movements and get a result. Similarly, it is of value to keep this topic, because I have a feeling the "9/11 Truth Movement" will be ongoing for quite some time and some folks might like to know about it even if others wish it didn't exist. As to the aspersion "POV Fork": has anybody noticed the incredible volume of content that is posted on this topic? There are folks who would like to document a cultural phenomenon and this is a legitimate place to do that. Wikipedia has room for these pages, it is not wrong to have them, except that some people, arguable with their own point of view, do not like this point of view and wish to quash it by resorting to every nasty wikipedia trick they can find. Even if the 9/11 Truth Movement is wrong, and 9/11 was in fact everything the mass media says it was--basically 19 Arab hijackers who were able to pull off the crime of the century, nothing more, nothing less--why shouldn't the opinions of those people be documented? Some might argue that the world is flat and that it's Turtles all the way down; I notice that wikipedia documents those ideas. Should those articles be put up for deletion as POV, or maybe they should be merged together? I dare even one of the proponents of deleting 9/11 Truth Movement to propose such an action. Under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_that_may_require_deletion we have:
    • Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)
    • Original research (including the coining of neologisms) - but if it's a source text, it should be moved to Wikisource (see below).
    • Vanity page
    • Advertising or other spam
    • Completely idiosyncratic non-topic
    • Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:
    • Article is possible copyright infringement
    • Image is possible copyright infringement
    • Image or other media needs deleting (but not because of copyright violation)
    • A useless redirect
    • A category scheme gone awry
    • A redundant or misguided series box
    • A redundant or misguided stub template or category.
    • Can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef")
    • Article is a source text (but not a copyvio)
    • Article is a hoax (not an article about a hoax)
    • Article is a candidate for speedy deletion including:

So what's the case here? I think the strongest argument anyone could possibly come up with is WP:NOT. Can you people who are so hungry to delete this article make a case for that? Otherwise, please go away and do some constructive content creation instead of trying to bring down what others are trying to put together. Kaimiddleton 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two on that list seem to apply: WP:NOT and WP:OR--DCAnderson 05:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Those are certainly the reasons given in the nomination! Vizjim 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:FAITH, please. Insinuations are not necessary. Vizjim 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Insinuations are not. Asking questions and curiosity is necessary. It's the fundament of science. No insinuations were made. User:Macieksk 15:43, 24 May 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep A new point: perhaps what is bringing this matter to a head is the May 17/06 Zogby Poll which 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. If 70 million Americans do not constitute a movement on Wikipedia, how many people are needed? Would someone in the Wikipedia administration please answer this question?--PureLogic 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Double vote by PureLogic. Andjam 01:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be a misunderstanding, this group wants more information and a new investigation, that is their common goal. MLK and Malcolm X both wanted equality for blacks, though they believed it was possible via different channels. As stated the common goal of a new investigation and more information is what makes it a movement. It is errie how these are being put up for deletion so close in time, no insinuation meant. --Zer0faults 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title is misleading. The word 'truth' in '911 Truth Movement' is a form of newspeak. There isn't really any truth involved in the actual movement. Which really isn't a movement either. It's more of a gyration. THE KING 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment' Plagarizing Morton devonshire isn't really a strong argument... Шизомби 07:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks Morton, for your well worded quote which clarifies why i believe the title of this article is misleading. THE KING 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Wombdpsw 06:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Though I've commented above, I hadn't actually made an explicit recommendation yet. I disagree that this article presents the same case as the "7/7 truth movement", that it is not a movement, and that it is not notable. I don't see strong reasons for deleting the article, only for improving it. I would recommend that the article be retitled 9/11 truth movement (lowercase) though. While some might not like the name, movements, etc. are given the name they themselves use. For example, the article on the U.S. domestic spying program is called by its euphemistic name Terrorist surveillance program since that is the more or less official name. My recommendation does not constitute an endorsement of the group, only a position on whether it warrants an article. Шизомби 07:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into one of the existing articles that cover this viewpoint already, for that is what it seems to be, a viewpoint rather than a movement. CovenantD 15:37, 25 May 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.