Deletion of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (5th nomination)

Comment: Their ideas are generally total nonsense, but the group (even if it is now defunct) is plenty notable.  Some of the news links seem to have gone dead (which is obviously common on wiki articles) but the group has been covered regularly in reliable sources.  If that coverage now stops the group is still a matter of historical interest and the article still passes .  Some of the sources cover only individuals affiliated with the group, but others (like the ABC article in footnote 16 and the Canada National Post article in footnote 27) cover the group itself.  I would cut down some of the material on the individual people (if anything it's probably some of them who could be deleted, though others are probably notable) and eventually try to rewrite this thing in a more past-tense manner, as though reflecting back on historical events.  Think about it this way.  Nutty as these folks are, there are going to be books written about this group someday by objective historians (I would literally guarantee that--it's too juicy of a topic), and later generations will probably be fascinated to learn about the wacko conspiracy theory stuff going around after 9/11 (at which this group has been unquestionably at the forefront because they are "scholars").  It would be silly to not have an article on this group, and keeping it obviously does not connote any sort of endorsement of their ideas (the article is actually relatively objective--though not very good overall--and the lead paragraph points out very quickly that their ideas are not generally accepted).  I'd also point out that the nominator apparently created their account literally a couple of hours ago and promptly came over to AfD this thing (which may or may not be cause for skepticism) and that his/her argument "harmful per BLP" does not seem to make sense since this is obviously not a biography of a living person.  The question here is whether the group is notable enough and has been covered in reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: As time passes, it is becoming more and more obvious that this group is not notable enough to pass .  We don't need articles on every person or group that ignores the facts and makes things up with regard to 9/11
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: This group doesn't pass , and there are significant  problems with respect to the individuals the group is blaming. BLP problems don't always have to be about the subject of the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:BLP)