Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11, researchers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge (2/3 in favour). Ingoolemo talk 04:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, researchers

What little is in this article is in David Ray Griffin, along with a bunch more wackiness Frjwoolley 01:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I see no reason why there should be article on September 11, researchers. As pointed out, David Ray Griffin already has an article. Since the VfD nomination. another name (Eric Hufschmid) has been added. This should all be merged under 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article should not be redirected to that page, however, because the title purports to be all 9/11 researchers, not just conspiracy theorists. - DS1953 02:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge: as suggested above. This article is titled poorly, and as DS1953 noted can carry the wrong connotation. Strikes me more as attempts by conspirowackos to gain credibility. --Durin 04:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested. --Xcali 04:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Aside from all the abusive ad hominem attacks by voters so far, the page provides a good overview of various authors who have written on the subject. Whether or not you agree with what they have to say (or have even bothered to read it) they are notable. They have written books which have sold many thousands of copies and have been endorsed by many prominent activists, professors, organizations, etc. If you don't think the page is properly titled, then that's an issue for "pages to be moved," not vfd. Blackcats 10:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is not uncommon for conspiracy believers to argue vehemently for their points. It doesn't change the reality that the article carries the wrong connotation and should be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Durin 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems you’re making yet another ad hominem attack. (And here I thought that “conspiracy theorists” were the ones who made logical fallacies.) Repeating your opinion does not make it any more a "reality," and like I said if you think there's a problem with the title then the move process can take care of that. And BTW, I was not arguing "vehemently." As anyone who knows me will attest, you'll know if I get "vehement" ;-) Blackcats 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Stating that a group of people argue vehemently is an ad hominem attack? I think you don't understand the meaning. Regardless, your response doesn't address the point. As with my comment below, to do this article appropriately to include all viewpoints would result in an immense article. The list, as it stands now, is all people who do not agree with official conclusions. Thus, the content is more appropriate for the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Please observe that I haven't voted to delete the content; merely merge it. --Durin 21:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Calling people "conspirowackos" is ad hominem. So is calling them "conspiracy believers." Everyone believes that 9/11 was due to a conspiracy - the only debate is who was doing the conspiring. Responding to an argument by saying that people "argue vehemently" is a non sequitur. I apologize for not making it more clear which of your fallacies I was referring to. Blackcats 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Noted, and not responding. You've devolved this into an argument that has little to do with the VfD. --Durin 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to bits, then delete. JFW | T@lk 11:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Agree with DS1953. JamesBurns 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: the magnitude of fallout from the events of 9/11 clearly merits a catalog of the who's who among 9/11 researchers Ombudsman 16:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then you won't mind if I include references to every single PhD the government has used in its investigation, yes? --Durin 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your levity is appreciated, Durin, even if not refreshing, given the gravity of the tragedy at issue. Of course, adding researchers who have tried in vain to keep alive the Bush administration's deceptive and disproven conspiracy theories, linking Iraq to 9/11 and to stockpiles of WMDs, would be very much welcome (short of spamming); bring 'em on, to coin a phrase. Merging into an article including the term conspiracy is patently absurd, however. Ombudsman 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Generally the term "September 11th researchers" has been used to mean researchers who believe there was complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11, but if you would like to change your vote and include some of the more notable researchers hired by the government to uphold the official conspiracy theory (that a cabal of Muslim zealots living in caves in Afghanistan hatched a successful plot to defeat the world's most powerful air -defense system using box-cutters) then I would not object. The article could easily include a section for those researchers who believe there was U.S. government complicity and one for those who don't. That's what Wikipedia is all about - presenting both sides of an issue and letting the readers decide for themselves. Blackcats 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If I were to include the people as I suggested, per the current way in which the page is laid out, the page would greatly exceed recommended article length. My suggestion was intentionally tongue in cheek, and should have been read as such. The list of people researching 9/11 is immense, too much so for Wikipedia to have an article titled as this one. The article thus is inherently going to be biased towards conspiracy theories. As such, it deserves to be merged. --Durin 21:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I was well aware that that you were being rhetorical. I simply decided to call your bluff. I am quite serious about what I said though, so long as like Ombudsman said, you don't spam the article with hundreds of insignificant individuals. It should only include the most notable researchers from each side - with two categories - those researchers who believe there was U.S. government complicity in 9/11 and those who don't.

Blackcats 04:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Then we should also be analyzing the significance of the people who are currently in the article if we go that direction. Before doing that, some metric needs to be established for how to count as significant. Anyone can publish a book; there are lots of companies that will enable you to publish, so that is not enough of a metric. Referring to WP:MUSIC #3 as a possible guideline, then we'd need two or more books from a major publisher by the author. The list of government investigators is very long, but their qualifications and notability are no less than most of the people currently on this list. Regardless of what you or I think, it's very clear from the current vote that this article will be merged; currently 9 merge 4 keep. If the article passes VfD as 'keep', then we can discuss metrics. Failing that, I'll refrain from commenting further. My vote for merge stands. Good day. --Durin 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge — Chameleon 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The page should but kept, as a list of 9/11 researchers is an important thing to have. It should also include a list of government researchers, to maintain npov. Zelmerszoetrop
  • Merge as above. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'keep or merge maybe but please do not erase this Yuckfoo 23:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. carmeld1 04:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Kevin Baastalk: new 20:59, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.