Deletion of Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd)

Comment: Article satisfies all inclusion criteria. Is someone trying to make a ? &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The article documents a social phenomenon - that of the facts of the hypothesis and the existence of the hypothesis.  It does not argue for the hypothesis, nor does it argue against it.  It simply, correctly and competently documents it as a hypothesis that exists.  The topic is suitable for encyclopaedic coverage and the article simply gives it that.  There was a certain inevitability that, as soon as a eer Review was asked for, someone would take the opportunity to propose it for deletion.  There is no issue with that since an AfD is, in many ways, a review process.  However it is important to make the distinction between the article which documents the demolitionists' hypothesis, which this handles correctly, and the hypothesis itself.  A correct and encyclopaedic article, which this strives to be, documents that citable facts of the existence of the hypothesis without either validating or invalidating that hypothesis.  The article needs to be judged on the merits of how it handles the topic - a notable, well reported topic - not on the merits of the various opinions people have about the truth or otherwise behind the destruction of the buildings
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: That you were present and saw no evidence of controlled demoliton may, if citable, be a useful part of the article.  Additionally, the fact that you saw no evidence for it neither makes the article suitable for deletion nor for keeping.  It is a valid personal statement but not a valid reason to "vote" either way.  The article is not about whether the destructon had any elements of controlled demolition in it.  The article is about a hypothesis that some people have proposed to explain the demolition.  As one of the editors who have worked on the article I can state that I think the hypothesis is , but that does not prevent it from being notable.  The article is about a notable piece of what appears to be ludicrous folklore.  It does not express any opinions or conclusions about this hypothesis, it simply documents that it exists
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: Yes, the subject is a conspiracy theory not grounded in reality. However, it's very otability|notable, easily |verified as notable and currently undergoing Wikipedia:Peer review/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1|Peer Review to improve the article's quality. The AfD is premature, and worded in a rather |uncivil manner
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: per unencyclopedic consipiracy cruft material and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: If I may, I'd like to remind the nominator of . I think the name-calling in the nomination is entirely uncalled for (but then again, I think name-calling is ''always'' uncalled for.) .V
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)