Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 open questions

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 delete. – ABCD 03:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11 open questions

POV rant. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury?" RickK 07:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Conspiracy theory bullshit. Gamaliel 09:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, your honor. (because it's a duplicate, of course) Gazpacho 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 10:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV rant, original research, non-encyclopedic, whatever. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Average Earthman 12:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Your Honour, we, the jury, vote that this article should be deleted. Jwinters | Talk 19:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to Wiki rules: NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete lack of neutrality cannot be an excuse to delete, and certainly not the first resort. Other articles like September 11, 2001 attacks have a POV that is completely pro-Bush's Official Story and ignores the over 50% of New Yorkers who think otherwise. Why is that not a candidate for deletion? Now that I have read the definition of NPOV, I am able to fix my article, if allowed the time. --Bogusstory 22:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Poll numbers don't matter, facts do. Large percentages of Americans believe Elvis is alive, UFOs probe people regularly, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside cavemen. An encyclopedia shouldn't indulge people in their ignorance. Gamaliel 20:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is true. However, it should acknowledge that such beliefs exist. See perpetual motion, Christianity and other such articles. It is a matter of presentation. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The content of the article is consistent with its title. The facts cited and presented therein raise sufficient questions about some of the events surrounding 9/11. As such, its inclusion is appropriate and helps to counter the systemic bias for which Wikipedia has been criticized. abhatnag 23:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • First and only edit by User:Abhatnag. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay, cannot be made NPOV. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That is untrue. Convert it to a stub if need be, but I can't believe there's nothing in the article at all that should not be preserved. When there are multiple views of the same thing, shouldn't all the terms used be available, albeit with redirects to a neutrally named article? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, POV, no capacity to ever become encylcopedic. DaveTheRed 03:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any useful content on this page would only duplicate existing material on pages such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, and 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, all of which are NPOV (which this article is not), well-written (which this article is not), and thoroughly sourced (which this article certainly is not). NatusRoma 06:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like this person read the article in question. Less than 1% of the information and sources in the article subject to deletion appears in the references above. --Bogusstory 22:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • While the article in question does add include a high degree of detail regarding many of its claims, the existing conspiracy articles are more logically named and NPOV. Adding things like fleshed-out details about the stand-down order to existing articles in a way that is NPOV would be a good thing, as they provide a much more solid foundation for legitimate expansion than the article up for deletion.NatusRoma 19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad somebody got some value out of the article before deletion. My article is too big to merge with smaller articles mentioned, without major edit fights. I believe we can together make my article NPOV and if given time I will make an effort. --Bogusstory 22:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep for now Until all assertions have been merged or the article renamed. Bogus, your article should be merged with existing ones or renamed. "9/11 Open Questions" is too vague. How about "Explanations of the events of 9/11"? One other point: do remove the redundancy from the article and link to the articles containing the information. Go to the discussion pages of those articles to question whether they should be renamed. Let me know when you've done this. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay of conspiracy theory allegations. Rossami (talk) 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. It has a rhetorical style that could be corrected. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV, speculation, etc. Feco 07:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I assume we already have a page on this particular conspiracy theory? Delete and possibly replace with redirect there. Radiant_* 09:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This information does not appear in other articles. Article requires minor edits only.--Roopkirani 17:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • First and only edit by User:Roopkirani. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
• Delete serious conspiracy pushing. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don tin foil hat. Neutrality^talk 22:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: don't you mean remove tinfoil hat :)? Slac speak up! 01:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons stated above. --Michael Snow 01:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First-person, POV rant. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, first-person, and redundant with existing articles. Rhobite 01:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatantly POV, and bullshit besides. Neilc 03:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Bogusstory has created an RfC on me for having the temerity to list his article here. RickK 00:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I'm less happy with him. OTOH, he can't really understand WP if he thought that would work. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Some of this is covered on other pages, and most of the other claims have been debunked -- even Popular Mechanics has a debunking story.--Cberlet 01:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, not a useful redirect. —Korath (Talk) 02:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original rant. --Carnildo 03:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV pushing. - Andre Engels 08:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything of value is already covered better (i.e. sourced, NPOV, well written) in 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, and 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. To whoever's trying to sockpuppet this VfD to death: it doesn't work, so don't bother trying. /sɪzlæk˺/ 09:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There might, potentially, be hidden somewhere in this article, some small little bit of information that belongs on Wikipedia -- hidden inside all the POV-pushing, original research, and speculation which does not. If Bogusstory can't be bothered to separate it out, why should anyone else be obligated to? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research, and utterly redundant. Merge serviceable material with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Binadot 16:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- It's homepage stuff not encyclopedia material. I wasn't aware of it and probably wouldn't have voted normally but since Bogusstory specifically emailed me to ask me to vote on the matter, I have. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like how quick people here are to label the expression of the view they disagree with "POV" and assume this is a sufficient reason to delete. As Bogusstory correctly notes, POV needs to be rewritten for neutrality, not deleted.

I am not an American and I don't give a shit if all you are enslaved by a corrupt theocratic messianic dictator, who throws people into jail without due process and who orders murders of American citizens and torture of innocent people abroad. But perhaps this allows me to stay more objective regarding 11/9. The official story is full of holes and inconsistencies. Some can be explained, some can't because of the wall of secrecy surrounding these events. By placing all concerns in a page called 9/11 conspiracy theories, Wikipedians make a judgement statement, implying that all these stories are bullshit.

For an example of a relatively unbiased and well-developed article, see Kennedy assassination theories. Compared to it, the 11/9 article on conspiracies is a joke. Supporters of official version are quick to carefully minimize the effects of their opponents' edits, by removing as much as they can.

The open questions article is a good start in fixing this deficiency of Wikipedia. It would be a shame, if a majority rule would essencially censor this topic - especially since most of the "arguments" for deletion center around it being POV. Guess what, the "conspiracies" article is the opposite POV. I vote Keep, but a careful and unbiased merge with existing articles would be a good option as well, provided that Bush supporters can control their urge to silence the opponents. Paranoid 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • That was an irritatingly immature comment. I'm disappointed that you feel the need to use this VfD page as a vehicle for an anti-American rant. Rhobite 07:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Rhobite, that was a shallow retort. Respond to his argument as well as criticising his dislike of the North American system. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? Comments like that deserve no response except for shallow dismissal. Conspiracy theorists, radical leftists, conservative nuts, and junk science people around here collectively waste a massive amount of time. Please don't instruct me on how to respond to irritating nonsense. Rhobite 07:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Believe me, it's even more irritating to see people irrationally dismiss any questioning of the official version. Paranoid 18:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with other 9/11 conspiracy articles. And make it NPOV. --Jyril 11:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if this is only original research. Conspiration theories must be more widely supported.--Jyril 13:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; don't bother merging. — Dan | Talk 05:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Bogusstory is now trying to rewrite several other conspiracy claim related pages to insert his POV material, including inserting a copyright violation bloc of text from a commercial encyclopedia.--Cberlet 01:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Has he been warned about the insertion of copyright text? Did he continue after being warned? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; and if the above claim is true, then ban user for vandalism. --Kitch 13:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, don't. Give him a warning first. Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The user sends personal emails asking for support against deleting this article. --Jyril 13:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• • So what? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep POV should be rewritten not deleted. 'conspiracy theoy' is what I would call the mainstream George Bush viewpoint... I see nothing very highly POV in this article or anything nonfactual.... and if there is POV, the solution is to edit not delete, if there are nonfactual entries, they should be edited or corrceted, not deleted. Pedant 22:58, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, yes, when an article is POV, it is preferable to edit rather than delete. However, the class of exceptions that leaps right out is when an article is not just POV but a POV fork, which this is -- Bogusstory came right out and admitted that he created this article because he couldn't make people accept what he wanted to do at the existing article on the 9/11 attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A POV fork? Can you get POV knives too? What are you on about? And if there are people who prevented him from altering the existing article, i.e. unanalysingly deleted the assertions he added, does that mean they are right? Mr. Jones 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you don't know what a POV fork is, perhaps you're not as ready for VfD as you think. A POV fork is similar to a code fork: there's a difference of opinion and rather than resolving that difference of opinion, one or both parties says "Okay, you do it your way over there; I'll be over here doing it my way." In open source, forking a project can be a healthy response to a difference in opinion. In Wikipedia it is recognized as an unacceptable alternative to actually resolving the issue. We want the best article that can be written on each subject, not one article containing X's slant on the subject, another containing Y's slant on it, a third for Z's, et cetera. That's Wikinfo's major modus operandi, but it's not Wikipedia's. Addressing your "if" -- yes, if the people who reverted his changes at the existing 9/11 articles did it by "unanalysingly deleting" his assertions, that would be against the policies of Wikipedia. Even if that unproven claim that the deletions were unanalysed and unthinking was true, however (and if I had a dime for every user who claims "they reverted my edits for no good reason" when the good reason is plain as day to everyone but that user...) two wrongs don't make a right. We have mechanisms in place for resolving article content disputes and POV forking is not one of them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • False. I created my article before I registered. My article was bigger than others and could not fit as major inserts into September attacks without resistance. Bogusstory 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above. —tregoweth 23:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Evercat 00:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite/move/cleanup. Everyking 05:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs massive clean up and POV word choice fixing but lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete. zen master T 21:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For once I agree with RickK. AngryParsley 21:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We should be possibly the only source of NPOV information about rumors and whatnot about the atrocity of 11th September 2001. We're certainly up to the task, and the public has a strong interest in this kind of rumor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep but massively improve it; else, merge what can be salvaged into the main article (I concure with Tony Sidaway as for the will to be a source of factual and passionless information) Rama 22:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We've already got NPOV articles on rumors, conspiracy theories, and whatnot: see 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, and Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. There are no NPOV claims in this article that are not already in the other articles. --Carnildo 23:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme POV. --Neigel von Teighen 23:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No Vote. This article does duplicate some content from 9/11.
• Delete. Speculation does not make an article. Fuzheado | Talk 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe the 5-day voting period has ended. Mr. Jone's has suggested a consensus based on the current version of the article. I am prepared to follow his suggestions for improvement. Bogusstory 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I count ~36 delete votes and 7 keep votes. This article will certainly be deleted. Please focus your efforts on another article now. Rhobite 07:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I count 9 keep and 1 merge. I agree this article needs massive clean up but I see issues with 9/11 open questions as shedding light on larger issues surrounding all 9/11 articles, the "conspiracy theory" articles and "misinformation and rumor" article especially. There is a lengthy discussion about the appropriateness of including "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" in a title over on Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. There are proposals to create a general 9/11 controversy article, and an article on Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report and a proposal to create an article titled something to the effect of Initial reactions to the 9/11 attacks which would cover both true and later proven to be untrue info about the immediate aftermath of the attacks (things like errant initial casualty figures, stories from survivors, world reaction, goverment leader reactions, etc). zen master T 07:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7 deletes is correct; sockpuppet votes aren't counted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a few comments. First, I guess that Bogusstory might want to have a copy of the article in his user space - now is the time to make that copy. Second, I believe that the discussing points out that there are serious shortcomings in Wikipedia coverage of "tricky issues" related to 9/11. The US government was caught lying many times - the whole WMD fiasco, the attack on that Italian journalist, the prison torture, etc. I absolutely fail to see how being contrary to the official line indicates that a version is wrong. It isn't even too farfetched that Bush himself ordered a strike on the towers - worse things happened. Well, this one may be a little bit over the top... but that doesn't mean there is nothing fishy about the 9/11 story.

I suggest that we create some placeholder stubs that can be used to expand that coverage. Their talk pages could then be used to discuss how to do it best. Meanwhile, this article should, of course, be deleted according to Wikipedia procedure. Paranoid 09:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Placeholder stubs? Why? If you have any additional information, please just add it to 9/11 conspiracy theories or 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory as appropriate. Keep in mind the policies on original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Rhobite 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I improved the article during the election on the evening of March 27. If we count votes from Derek Ross and after, I see 10 deletes, 5 keeps and 1 merge. From my understanding, the Wiki rules on deletion allow an article to improve and address concerns while the election is going on and the consensus is to reflect on the improved article. Bogusstory 23:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If your belief is that you can get votes discounted by saying "I improved the article; now none of the votes cast prior to that improvement count", you're quite mistaken. That isn't the way it works. The best you can hope for is that someone who already voted might decide to change their vote if they think the change in the article merits a change of vote. I wouldn't count on that if I were you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see changes but no improvement. My vote stands. --Carnildo 00:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto what both Antaeus Feldsparand Carnildo said. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 10 Apr 2005 (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.