Deletion of Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Comment: This article is a black hole of POV forkery, and roughly half its references are blatant violations of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per nom. POV fork, , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: or a '''Redirect''' Its one of the major conspiracy theories, but there's so much nonneutral point of view and |OR in the article I can see why it needs deletion. Articles which cannot become NPOV are often deleted.  Would suggest a protected redirect, however.  There has to be something that's not junk in this article that can be merged back into 9/11 conspiracy theories over time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as unencyclopedic and severely undue weight to a minority viewpoint as well as synthesis of facts in order to support a hypothesis in violation of . A minority viewpoint("hypothesis") does not require a full article explanation and this current treatment goes way afield of 's dictum on undue weight and POV fork. The prime contributor to his article has admitted it is a vehicle for presenting his POVhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=77564182&oldid=77544991., in gross violation of , , and . Delete with prejudice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: Blatant soapboxing, and as such unlikely to ever meet . Many of these "secondary sources" aren't exactly reliable ones, either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: and ''ballance'''. From  ''Verifiability, not truth'' so whether this is "nonsense" does not come into the equation. What is perhaphs a more appropriate policy is  ''Undue weight''. Firstly is having this article giving undue weight to a particular conspiracy theory? Seeing as how it seems to be the domininant alternative account, covered by a wide varierty of mainstream media I would say not. A second question which does not relate to this AfD is whether this article gives ''undue weight'' to the pro controled demolition advocates against those who disagree with this theory. Jones and Hoffman raise several important questions: namely why were the collapses so neat and tidy, none of the references in the critisim section really address this question
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: While clean up is certainly merited (a number of the sources I've managed to go through so far are, at the very best, barely capable of satisfying ), no one is arguing that this theory's existence is unverifiable, and it's certainly notable. I assume that the majority of those who have responded here have heard about the theory at some point. In my eyes, if the theory has gained enough credence that even my own government is taking the time to http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355 respond to it, it's also got enough to warrant a WP article. The article itself is not inherently POV, and the "blatant soapboxing" everyone is referring to can be cleaned up by clearing the worst cruft and citing the rebuttals where possible. POV is always going to be an issue with articles on controversial topics, but AfD isn't the place to resolve it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: back to 9/11 conspiracy theories So many "strong" votes on this. Let's turn off the emotions, folks, and look at this like robots. Let's read  and  and try to personally turn off your thoughts on the subject and judge it according to WP guidelines. There is nothing about this article that should warrant its own page
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:NOT)

Comment: Correct me if I am mistaken, but tallies during AfDs are deprecated, are they not?  This AfD requires a wholly uninvolved, totally disinterested and highly experienced Admin to close it.  One who will read the monotonous argument, counter argument and repeats thereof, and will sort out the wheat from the chaff calmly.  Since emotions are running high on this it might even be wise (assuming procedures will allow it, and using the spirit of  if they do not) to close the discussion prior to considering and posting the outcome.  Were I an admin, and were I to be stuck with the task of closing this monster I would look not only at the arguments made in this discussion, but at many surrounding circumstances and naturally at the article itself, knowing that this was also likely to be taken by either "side" to deletion review.  And I would write a small treatise on why I reached the conclusions I reached.  I am pleased I am not in this position
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Yes it could use a bit of cleanup but links mentioning the theory, including at least one link from http://usinfo.state.gov/ http://usinfo.state.gov/ seem notable and reliable.  There have been some changes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=78189963&oldid=76042873 (diff here) since the fork, but nothing to say the article has degraded beyond repair since the fork, which passed keep the last AfD (or whatever that double-AfD was).  By the way, for an admin to make the statement ''The article will be deleted...I just thought I would bring it here for discussion...it's your job to convince me to not delete it. Since the article is a soapbox platform, that is a clear violation of .'' is outrageous.  Seems he acknowledged such by removing it from this page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Just a couple of observations and a summary at this late hour. The concensus in pure concensus terms is significantly more in the Keep side rather than any other (yes, AfD is not a vote, but yes also that the much larger majority clearly believes the article has merit and legs based on this). All the delete reasons seem to be one of four points: 1) That the article should be deleted as non-notable (beyond disproven); 2) the theory itself needs validation from qualified sources to merit inclusion (absolutely inappropriate deletion reason--many articles in scientifically unproven theories ranging from God to Bigfoot exist); 3) POV fork (this is highly disputed and refuted); 4) various scattered reasons which it is not a violation of  to say are clearly based on personal reasons, rather than policy (all of them can be safely discounted--I respect ones' personal beliefs, but they are not appropriate for consideration or discussion relevant to Main article space matters). And again, this already passed AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controlled-Demolition_Theory_%289/11_Conspiracy_Theory%29 once as a keep,  exactly ''10 days'' before this AfD. You cannot rerun an AfD until you get the desired result, and subsequent AfDs before at least 4-6 months after this one should be closed immediately on disruption grounds.  is not applicable or appropriate either as concensus cannot trump or overrule the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia, and the notability and validity of the article under policy has been established already once
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:CCC)

Comment: This collection of minority viewpoints will never achieve a |NPOV, will never have |reliable sources, and will never stop being a soapbox (which |Wikipedia is Not). It's also entirely unencyclopedic. Delete it now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:NOT)