Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (4th nomination)

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 Speedy KEEP, nominated too recently and WP:SNOW. -Doc 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

barely notable, inflammatory, exists just to push conspiracy theory cruft POV TheOnlyChoice 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing has changed from its first nomination (Feb 2006), second nomination (Mar 2006), and third (May 2006) Middenface 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, it's even more sourced now than it was on previous AfDs (CNN, Fox, national post, etc.) rootology (T) 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol --Striver 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gazpacho 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, referenced and endlessly rehashed, and note that the user, whose user page says 'I come to edit', made their user page their first edit, and the other three to do this AfD. Something smells funny on *that* one... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing has changed, except for certain sections which seem to be undergoing revert wars. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, referenced, encyclopedic. Edison 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much as this pains me. Notable group of nutjobs in high places. Someone's gotta make it a bit more neutral, though, and cite some responses to loaded questions like "How did all three WTC buildings collapse close to the speed of which they would have collapsed had there been no structural stability at all?" when that isn't what happened at all. Raggaga 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this should be a criterion for speedy keeping. This has been nominated now 4 times, and mostly because of its political content/potential to cause offense. Could the closing admin please place a notice on the discussion page to leave it alone? - Richardcavell 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, needs cleanup however. ReverendG 02:32, 18 August 2006 (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.