Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 advance-knowledge debate

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 was Keep - no delete votes--JForget 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 advance-knowledge debate

9/11 advance-knowledge debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:POVFORK of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Article title get 5 google hits, suggesting this debate mostly exists on Wikipedia only. Weregerbil (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing WP:POVFORK:
A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
this article is not a "content fork" since it is a subarticle and treats things that are not treated in other articles and is not a POV fork because it is not a "content fork" and also doesn't endorse a POV. If you don't like the title then maybe you could just try to suggest alternative names. The suggestion that "the debate mostly exists in wikipedia only" is definitely contradicted by the many sources that are cited inside the artcle.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source in there somewhere which shows there is a famous debate going on? Something that shows the article describes an existing phenomenon, rather than conspiracy theorists collecting a farm of (mis)quotes that exists nowhere else than the article? A lot of the "sources" in the article seem to be conspiracy theory web sites... Any source that confirms the debate exists, describes the debate neutrally, confirms the hand-picked quotes are relevant and examines them from various sides, and allows a real article to be written? Weregerbil (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the topic is clearly notable, and a subarticle rather than a POVFORK. The fact that the title doesn't get ghits perhaps reflects difficulty in finding an appropriate title for a topic which hasn't got a formal name, but that doesn't prevent it from being a worthwhile topic for an article. PamD (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This one is parcular, however nothing has convinced me to vote against it as of right now. -Jahnx (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. That we may not have selected the best title doesn't mean it isn't a notable "debate" (discussion, concern). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely well-sourced, notable topic, invalid use of Ghit criteria -- just because the article title isn't replicated elsewhere doesn't mean the topic is NN, OR or unique to Wikipedia. One glance at the sources completely eliminates the NOR argument. I agree with Pokipsy that if there's an issue with the title, take it up at the article level. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, sourced, and sadly this is a real debate. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Well-sourced, and it's hard to deny that people are not in agreement about who knew what prior to 9/11. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 advance-knowledge controversy. The 9/11 advance-knowledge debate is only notable if there are independent reliable secondary sources about the debate. This article cites many sources, but they all seem to be sources of evidence that is used in the debate which is different than sources about the debate. Keeping this as 9/11 advance-knowledge debate would be like if Lincoln-Douglas debates gave numerous, well-cited arguments for and against expansion of slavery, but didn't say anything at all about the historical context of the debates themselves, their historical significance, the significance of Lincoln and Douglas being involved, etc. Chuck (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I like this move. I am no native Englisher, but it sounds better to me. And also, making claims and being ridiculed is not to much debate as controversy. // I'll take a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories ... and added <!--please add additional information into the subarticle, per WP:SUMMARY, this is only a synopsis --> to avoid content forking. (keep)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While the sourcing could be a bit better, there is enough sourcing to show that the topic is notable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as the subject is notable and sources are available. It might need to be renamed to a more common search term; that's no reason to delete. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article contains important information that is not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A lot of the material has already been moved from other pages because they were getting too large. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important topic in the 9/11 attacks that is unable to be fully addessed in other areas. The list of facts can hardly be considered controversial, so debate is a better title. It really needs it's own page with the amount of information it contains. Currently it is well written and needs more input. bov (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment google search yielding 600]  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (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.