Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Citizens Watch (2nd nomination)

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 was redirect to 9/11 Truth movement. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Citizens Watch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

9/11 Citizens Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fringe site that fails notability guidelines. First AFD was in 2006, however it was flooded with Keep votes from WP:SOCK accounts, hence closing as keep. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would dispute that some of the "Keep" users are sock puppets:
The following are all users with a considerable history of contribution to the project, and with too many contributions for me to consider it likely that they are merely a sock puppet:
There are only two users who are almost certainly sock puppets, USER:Bov and USER:Gazpacho, and also one that I consider possibly a sock puppet, though probably not, USER:Drett - though it does also appear that they hold some... questionable... political views.
With all that said, taking a quick gander at the sources suggest that the subject is not notable, but I won't vote unless I get the chance to look in more detail. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @NoCOBOL: I quickly scrolled through some of the keep votes as at time i nominated and found out some were blocked SOCK accounts. So i take it back that it was flooded with sock keep votes as i have seen that some were also admins as at then. PlotHelpful (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't this be merged to the 9/11 Comission article, since it is tangentially related? I see a potential, the 2 articles are concise enough. Garlicolive (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019
  • Comment The section 'Press coverage' looks like a weird way to attempt to establish notability. If the mentions contain useful information you would imagine they be used in the body of the text. Also, if you look at the CSPAN ref, which is a hosting site and therefore primary, it indicates the information on the page isn't even correct. the organisation has two founders, one of whom isn't on the page. Mramoeba (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete leaving aside the sockpuppet overpopulation problem with the 1st AfD, and leaving aside the fact that this is a FRINGE, conspiracy theory outfit to look at the sources. Problem is that the souces I find in searches are either FRINGE (self-published books with titles like The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, and Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation into 9/11,) or they are mere mentions , tend to be vague, and have different sets of facts. One of the very few recent mentions in a reliable newspaper, the The York Dispatch, How a national conspiracy theory museum wound up in the 'boondocks' is about a new conspiracy theory "museum, the Hidden History Museum that is composed of stacks of cardboard filing coxes in a rented space in a disused strip mall. The files were collected by a man named John Judge, now deceased. Her's the part about the "9/11 Citizens Watch": [ https://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/mike-argento/2019/01/16/how-national-hidden-history-museum-wound-up-york-county-pa-conspiracy-theory-museum-john-judge/2582211002/ Judge wasn’t a 9/11 truther, though. Tenenoff said, “He thought those people were fanatics." He formed a 9/11 Citizens Watch to counter the 9/11 Commission, asking the questions that weren’t asked. He didn’t believe, as some truthers do, that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. He thought that was preposterous, Tenenoff said. How would they get the explosives in the buildings? Were the explosives built into the buildings’ steel frames? He didn’t buy that. Nor did he buy the notion that the Pentagon attack was staged and that a plane did not crash into it. He lived close enough that he felt it. No, all of that was distraction, he believed. He did have some questions. Were the suspected terrorists identified as being on the planes really on them? Did George W. Bush know about the attacks and let them happen to give him a pretext to invade Iraq? He was more interested in the aftermath, Tenenoff said, the loss of civil liberties, the constant state of war, the amount of power shifted to the government. “He just wanted to know what really happened,” she said. The truth, it seems, is out there, contained somewhere in the 270 boxes and 8,000 books and hundreds of audio and video tapes housed in a small, nondescript office suite in the middle of nowhere, Pennsylvania.]. As someone menitoned above, our article cites a different "founder". In sum, there is just not enough reliable sourced, SECONDARY sourcing to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Working on Keep. Trying to clean up the article and find better sources. Don't know why John Judge (not John Judge) isn't included. Put an external link for 4 C-SPAN videos until I figure out which is used as a ref. Here is an RTF of their 9/11 Commission Critique which concludes, "We do not anticipate that we will disagree with all the many conclusions and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission’s final report..." Still looking for"The Omission Report". There are other bad links too. Org seems less fringe and more just criticizing the process and secrecy of the investigation. If you did merge, maybe Criticism of the 9/11 Commission might be a better article. StrayBolt (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    comment @StrayBolt: As you are working on it can you get rid of the passing mentions please which are clearly there to give the illusion of notability, as noted above (and one may add the BBC ref to that as well). Coverage needs to be in depth and not trivial. Mramoeba (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No see this is exactly what is NOT going to help establish notability. This is making me think delete. The CSPAN refs are all primary because it's coverage of their own press conference made by themselves. It doesn't mean it's ok because Scoop posts a link to it which is what your two links are, a link to a conspiracy theory news aggregator page. Also failing to see how a non free Getty image has anything to do with this. If this is the best there is, then it's not notable. Mramoeba (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I believe there is a good degree of discernment by Scoop with what they choose or choose not to publish, just as much as they do with major NZ newspapers. The Getty image is just an indication of the conference that would have been either televised or printed in a reliable newspaper. That wasn't to prove notability as such. It was more for those who want to find out about it as I don't have the time at this moment. Karl Twist (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scoop is not a newspaper. This is an uneditorialised press release redirecting to 911truth.org, a conspiracy theory website. Wikipedia informs us "The website publishes a large number of submitted news and press releases due to their permissive policy." All of these links are already on the page anyway as they all lead to CSPAN which is in external links. Mramoeba (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having had some time to look at this, this is a clear delete. The organisation managed a handful of press mentions, none in mainstream sources, and the rest of this is primary, some of it disingenuously made to look secondary through the wording and reference landings (from article edit summary I removed the worst). In summary:
1) Primary: Own website, allowable for basic facts/descriptors only
2) Primary: Zogby market research was sponsored by Citizens Watch. This article is a summary of findings
3) Christian Science Monitor is generally considered reliable source, however this is a short article covering groups who submitted questions to the commission the adverts CW posted and quotes, there is no in depth coverage, in fact the only interpretation of CW by the journalist is "one of the groups observing the proceedings"
4) BBC is a mention, the entire article is 9 different reaction comments, no journalitic analysis or interpretation.
5) Abook which is not viewable. From the Google snippet I suspect this could very easily be another passing mention of their reaction to the report, as covered elsewhere.
6) Washington TIMES, wikipedia disputes reliability, "The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." There is no coverage of CW in it anyway, just a quote from Kyle Hence.
Mramoeba (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I still stand by my keep vote. Because so much of the media is controlled by the like of Murdoch, searches need to be done in other areas. The Getty images pic that features April Gallup and Rosemary Dillard states they were at a 9/11 Citizens Watch press conference at the National Press Club. Was it on TV or in which papers? Anyway ..... But if it leans too much toward Delete then the history should be preserved and it should be re-directed to 9/11 Truth movement and a small section be created there. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2019 (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/9/11_Citizens_Watch_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=884763330"