Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11

Add links
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 MERGE to 9/11 Truth Movement. There is little well-argued support for retaining a standalone article. Much of it is "but we have Pokemon articles". Well yes, we do. That doesn't have a great deal to do with this article though, which is largely unrelated to Pokemon. The 'merge to' arguments are well-enough supported, with the supposition that deleters will grumble but live with a merge as a compromise position that I reckon there's a reasonably consensual position on this. That said, a merge is an editorial decision. Fuddlemark's point about right's to express POVs is on the money, by the way. -Splashtalk 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizens' Commission on 9-11

[edit]

KEEP: The Citizens' Commission is the best single DVD summary of the good evidence, without the nonsense and poison pills, that 911 was a USG covert operation. Michael Green

  • Keep Do not offend me by implying i have not the right to represent my view here! I am starting to real angry and uppset over such statements! How come i am "sopboxing" when trying to represent my view, but you are contributin when you try to do the same? Im not far from losing civility. As for your accusations to the article, it clearly says: "The commision IS FORMED AS a United States Congress hearing" and not "The commision WAS a United States Congress hearing". Maybe you didnt even bother to read the title, "The Citizens Commission on 9-11", ? IF you even bother to look at it, you will see that it is a very good description. Even if it was a bad description, you should fix it, not delete the whole article. Further, it is notable for several resons, one being that Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman, participiated in it. Man i am angry! --Striver 10:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, you don't have the right to represent your view here. Neither do I, nor anyone else on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a democracy, free speech forum, or personal website; and WP:NPOV is our second-most important policy (behind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). I don't have an opinion about this specific article, but I would hope that you have a better reason for creating it and similar articles besides a desire to express your own point of view, and a better reason for keeping it besides taking offence at the "nomination" above and being worried about your "rights". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt mean it that way, i meant that all povs must be represented, including mine. --Striver 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this a somehow particularly noteworthy conspiracy theory deserving its own article? Is a congressperson sitting in on a commission highly notable in the USA? Their web site seems to be mostly about selling their reports, complete with payments for the reports going to some survivalist stuff shop. Weregerbil 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a article about any theory at all, this is a article about a civil commission, and quite a noteworthy such, among those people holding those views. And in fact, it is noteworthy in its own acount as well, since Cynthia McKinney is participiating.
  • Comment One member of Congress participating in an event held by 9/11 'truth' organizations does not count as a Congressional hearing. Do you know what a Congressional hearing is? (note that I am not trying to be hostile and I apologize in advance if I in any way sound like I do).--Jersey Devil 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, bro *smile*. Thanks for being so polite to me. Bro, the event was about the most prominent researchers in the 9/11 truth field getting together to have a commisson about 9/11. Now, as it turned up, they choose to mimic the congressional variant. That does not make them a Congressioan hearing congress, neither is the article claiming any such thing. I will edit the article to clearify that. --Striver 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from the US; my main source of information on the workings of the US government is The West Wing :-) There they'd send a government representative to sit with some fringe group meeting so they can say they covered all the bases. The survivalist connection here really smells like nam pla. Weregerbil 11:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what you meant, but if you questioned wheter Cynthia whas there on her own, or sent by someone, you only need to look trough the recording to see clearly that nobody in politics would "send her" to that Commission. Her point of view in that Commission is not far from being politica suicide. Further, she was no a congresswoman at that time, she had been fired, but she was re-elected not much later. Politicians hate her, the people love her. --Striver 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo. Could you give me a single line that is even a LITTLE BIT POV? Man, you make me curse out loud while im typing! You not liking the article does not make the article pov! You certanly chose the correct name! --Striver 11:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I and Mongo go back, we have history... But you have right. I lost my temper on that last line. --Striver 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History? I only remember you from a few days ago at most.--MONGO 13:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a long "few days". --Striver 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as non-notable (apart from all the POV). As already pointed out, this isn't a "United States Congress hearing", and there is no indication this "commission" is notable even in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Echo the soapbox comment by nominator. Sandstein 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why people like to repeat things i have proven false. The article DOES NOT claim that it is a United States Congress hearing, and the evidence of it being notable " in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists" is that the follownig people where among them:

They are among the top of the "circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists". If you still dont know how those people are notable, then at least admit you have no idea of who is or is not notable among those holding my view.

--Striver 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it can be argued that it was non-notable for everyone else, but it is notable for those in the group. Its like saying that the religious festivite of a minor religion is non-notable, only since you never heard of it. I clearly showed that the most prominent people holding that view where present in that event. Notability does not mean whether you care, rather, if the relevant people care.

Is doing "the report of the theorists" not what wikiepdia is about? How can you vote delete for doing what wikipedia is about, reporting points of views?

People, dont delete things only because you dont agree with the view! --Striver 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the people in the group care is irrelevant. Whether the world at large cares is. The discussions I and my friends had in the pub last night were important to us, but they still aren't encyclopedic material. Can't find notability in this conspiracy theory report or the proceedings that created it. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the views, it has everything to do with WP:N. Some conspiracy theorists calling themselves "a commission" is not automatically notable. I have no POV agenda I am trying to push here. Weregerbil 13:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get it, why can this event not have its own artice? It shows every single sign of being notable for the persons in the concerned circle!--Striver 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement, as its only claim to notability is its affiliation with that group. (And clean up the content first.) JDoorjam Talk 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, everything affilitated with the 9/11 Truth Movement is to be merged there? Why not merge everything related to Islam inte Islam? Why not merge Salat into Islam, since it is only notable due to being a part of Islam? --Striver 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, everything that doesn't have enough content that it should be a separate article should be merged there. Salat should not be merged into Islam because there's more than enough content to discuss Salat in great detail on its own page, but still give a general overview of it in its parent page, Islam. I don't see that there's enough material here that this shouldn't be merged. My reasoning is, if someone wants to get an idea of what the 9/11 Truth Movement is all about, they shouldn't have to run all over the Wiki to find information. If this is worth saying, it's small enough in content that it's worth saying on the 9/11 Truth Movement, rather than putting shards of this topic all over the encyclopedia. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and POV. --Aaron 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A commision with a congresswoman participiated in it is nn and POV? Could you expand on HOW it is POV? I really like it when people say "delete, pov" to a article, without the slightest motivation on HOW it is pov. Further, POV is NPOVed, not deleted. --Striver 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's my understanding she was not a Congresswoman at the time... though who can tell? The article has no dates. I do have to agree with Striver that "POV" is a rather weak reason to delete this article, as the article is about a group (and maybe an event? Who can tell?) with a POV, but that does not make the article itself have a POV that cannot be, you know, N'd. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Media coverage, World premier of a movie, former and future congresswoman participiated, great oppurtunity to spread the message... Why do you think people would record the entire thing and put it on the net for download, if it was non-notable for those in the movement? --Striver 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The Citizens' Commission on 9-11 web sites are primary sources for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The McKinney web site does not mention the article subject. The other web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Article is expanded, some votes may need to be re-evaluated. --Striver 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered that, why do people keep ignoring the issues that make this relevant, and keep repeating things that DOES not make this relevant? Why dont you delete this sayng "they drank water, that does not make it notable"?

This was the bigges things that happened to the 9/11 movement then, ONLY that makes it notable, even if you ignore that:

  • There where VERY prominent people among the 9/11 truth movement there.
  • One of them got into congress a few month later.
  • A decade long Canadian mainstream journalist was present.
  • Media was there.
  • Families of the vicitims of 9/11 wherer there.
  • A world premier of a movie happened.
  • The whole event was recorded and is still distributed for download.
  • Notable writers where there

Guys, why do you keep ignoring that, and keep saying "sitting like a congresional hearing is not notable, delete"?--Striver 14:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFS! THEIR NOTABILITY DOES NOT LIE THERE!. What next? "I can also talk, does them talking means that was notable?". I have on several places on this talk page listed why the event is higly notable among 9/11 Truth activists, and nowere has nobody stated that they are notable for aranging the even like a congress hearing! Stop giving strawman arguements! --Striver 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this article is NOT about a therory, this article is about a EVENT. --Striver 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholehartedly with that, im not a native english writer, and i do my best. I do creat notable articela about the subject, and i gooogle after sources, but my weak side is copyediting. But as things are, wikipedia is a mutliman project, each contributing with what we can. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipolicy to summon attention if one believes it is needed. I annoy you for following Wikipedia policies? --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as non-notable. Association with a few notable people does not necessarily guarantee notability -- and the number of red links makes me wonder if those people are even notable themselves. (Additionally, many of the blue links are also AfDs.) bcasterlinetalk 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The red links are there because not every single person is notable, for example the families of victimes are arguebly not notable in themselves. If they are, ill be happy to create a article about them. Not all blue links are upp for AFD, and those that are will make it. In my view, they are bad faith nominations, driven by a desire to stop articles about 9/11 truthmovement to be writen. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my sentiment. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Citizens Commission was one of the most unique, important and key historic events of the early public response questioning the official story. There were only a few unique organized events like this that took place, where members of congress, the victim's families, and 9/11 truth activists all came together to demand answers. Bov 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an AfD discussion grows longer, the probability of a mention of Pokemon approaches 1. David Sneek 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. fancruft is a particularly vivid illustration of the reminder that Wikipedia isn't paper. Trying to reduce unencyclopedic articles in such well-defended fandoms would be like trying to haul the United States into a world court on human rights. --Dystopos 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Citizens%27_Commission_on_9-11&oldid=1141944057"