Deletion of Judy Wood

Comment: This article is one part bioskethc of Judy Wood, 10 parts 9/11 conspiracy theory. The theory has received little-to-no publicity outside of a small group, and there are no |reliable sources to establish sufficiently wide notability for the theory, therefore failing Wikipedia:Fringe theories:The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.Wood's  claims are far too weak to stand on their own, so there's not enough here to justify an article. I would not be opposed to a merger of any of the important theory information into Morgan Reynolds (please trim it up to a paragraph or two, though...). Hell, if you do that, make this a redirect to that section as far as I care. Bottom line: insufficent reliable sourcing and insufficient notability combine to create an inappropriate Wikipedia article. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: not notable. A Google search on ''"judy wood"'' + ''"trade center"'' produces 432 unique hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Judy+Wood%22+%22trade+center%22&num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&start=0&sa=N first 100, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Judy+Wood%22+%22trade+center%22&num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&start=400&sa=N last 32). I could find no media reports that meet the requirements of our |Notability and |Reliable Sources Guidelines. Find sources that meet those requirements and I'll be happy to reconsider
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: Assistant professors are not generally notable enough for individual articls. Her theory of directed energy weapons being used to help the aircraft impacts and ensuing fired bring down the two towers is not very credible on its face, and is not presented in the article as being published in reliable peer reviewed scientific publications, but insteat the article refers to her website. The article fails to satisfy  or . Her concept of "dustification" does not appear to have caught on in the scientific world.  If she is a well published scientist and researcher beyond the 9/11 theorizing, that should be presented in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ATT)

Comment: Whether her theories have merit or whether she's a crackpot, the provided sources don't appear to me to establish |notability, and my googling didn't show evidence that she's been profiled in significant news media- just the usual array of WTC conspiracy theory sites, which wouldn't count as nontrivial independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: There are no reliable sources discussing this. All we have are a few blog entries and some self-published claims. Woods does not meet | general inclusion criteria for biographies nor dor she meet |inclusion criteria for academics. There is simply nothing we can say about this person that is at all sourced to reliable sources. While there may be cases where there are exceptions to basic notability criteria, this is not one of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: per David Eppstein, she's not notable as an academic.  Comparisons to Steven Jones are simple  arguments, and dismissable on those grounds.  This article functions as a soapbox, which is what #SOAPBOX|Wikipedia is not.  If the raygun theory is notable then an article (establishing encylopedic notability) should be on that topic, not Judy Wood
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NOT)

Comment: Inclusion of this page in Wikipedia is not a referendum on either the theory or the person. The name of the page is the name of the person, so it should be about the person, not a description of the theory. Notability requirements are not met, since there is not enough widespread coverage of the person by reputable media.  If this changes in future, then such an article can exist, but not with the present lack of coverage. If you take away the theory, then all is left is someone with a Ph.D., and who was a Professor, which is not, in and of itself, notable. Does not meet requirements for  does not meet requirements for |inclusion criteria for academics. If you change it to just the theory then there hasn't been enough independent coverage in the media to warrant inclusion yet.  Either way, it does not meet the requirements for an article yet, and WP is not a cystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF)