Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7/7 Truth Movement

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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7/7 Truth Movement

No secondary sources, original research; link farm for conspiracy sites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and verifiable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly is worth keeping, I cannot seriously believe it would be considered for an AfD!I know the website is moved after a hack and is being put on a free hosting site temporarily, but it will be back, under different titles but this is the main. References to the actual title is [1] [2] What is happening to Wikipedia? Do the government have a hand in it? LOL In fairness, I was warned about this. I say keep, it is extremily notable and verifiable and is only growing. As with 9/11 Truth Movement it is not "official" but is a loose knit group happy to be under this title. I believe THIS is the temporary site, I will check with my contacts. FK0071a 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- According to his user page, User:FK0071a is a member of this group. :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article says, "The 7/7 Truth Movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious", which I translate, probably unjustifiably, to mean "The 7/7 Truth Movement is three men and a dog with an internet connection who argue with everyone they meet and don't get on terribly well with each other, either". They certainly don't seem to have had any influence whatsoever on the national debate. NN conspiracy nonsense. Vizjim 15:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - true, however, this doesn't seem to apply to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I do not see that up for an AfD! Also, under Alex Jones the 7/7 Truth Movement are making a documentary along the lines of the 911 In Plane Site and 9-11: The Road to Tyranny [3] documentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FK0071a (talk • contribs)

Keep, just as real, verifiable and encyclopedic as the 9/11 Truth Movement [4] --Striver 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, a MySpace link to a blog! That is sure notability proven! User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sherlock it is, especially as it is Paul Joseph Watson's blog stating about the documentary being made. In addition, PrisonPlanet.tv (which you do not subscribe to) states the obious with all kinds of references to counter Wikipedias Communistic bias FK0071a 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted I will nominate the 9/11 Truth Movement for deletion. That article's existence is not proof of anything: it has not been nominated for deletion and its legitimacy has not been discussed. Vizjim 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has the 9/11 Truth Movement been referenced, other than references to their web site. The web site might be notable, and the "movement" not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Save us all the trouble and read WP:POINT first. TheProject 18:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. How would following precedent be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? I think that this article ("7/7 Truth Movement") should be deleted. I think that "9/11 Truth Movement" should be deleted for the same reasons. However, I will see what the consensus here is before nominating multiple articles on the same basis. Entirely in keeping with WP:POINT: in fact, that's the point of WP:POINT! Vizjim 15:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page does not give an opinion but merely provides an explanation itto the movement. it doesnt at any time give any give an opinion top the validity of the statement. It is also verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeychild222 (talk • contribs)

Comment- User:Monkeychild222 created May 11, 2206 and has four edits. :) Dlohcierekim 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a link farm and OR. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kilo-Lima above; no verification that there is a formal organization other than people holding a common viewpoint. --mtz206 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, three Google hits for "7/7 Truth Movement". User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very small number of google hits for the term. If the article is kept, the term will perpetuate. Wikipedia shouldn't be used in this way. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vizjim. --Nydas 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence provided a notable movement exists, fails google test spectacularly. Non-notable club, CSD A7 applies. Weregerbil 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonotable by many standards. --Mmx1 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to creator of article: Welcome to wikiland!

To others:

A 7/7 truth movement is emerging. So far, the most comprehensive introduction we have seen is at Julyseventh.co.uk. This well-organized compendium includes a discussion of possible scenarios, a growing timeline, archives of news stories, many links to other 7/7 skeptics, the widely-distributed "77 Unanswered Questions About 7/7," by John Doe II, and a section on the relevance of 9/11. [5]--Striver 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --mtz206 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this: A 7/7 truth movement is emerging. You know, it is up and comming...--Striver 11:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it is comming? Isn't that speculation and original research? gidonb 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Worth keeping.Jordy 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a world we live in. Any nobody with an extreme opinion and a big mouth can put up a website and suddenly be "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article about themselves. KleenupKrew 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 7/7 Truth Movement is a collection of groups, individuals, and researchers questioning the official account of 7/7 who disagree to varying degrees with the mainstream media account of what occurred during the July 7th, 2005 London bombing attacks.This smells like a neologism for a number of conspiracy theorists, the only thing the have in common being they believe in a "7/7" conspiracy. Dr Zak 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have never heard of this 'movement' and I live just a few hundred yards from where one of the bombs went off. Nothing has appeared in the local papers nor in the national press. The lack of sources is very telling. David | Talk 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yes David, so, just because the controlled media doesn't respond means that their is nothing going on? Laughable! I live hundreds of miles away and have heard of this movement greatly, so where do we stand now? What a joke this is becoming. FK0071a 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for the wider fringes of conspiracy theories. David | Talk 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the moment, they are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. When we have reliable, verifiable

material available about them, then an article about them might be warranted. That time has not yet arrived. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is your problem that the information that they are supporting is not verifiable or that the existence of these conspiracy theorists are not verifiable. If a group of people have enough verifiable information about their existence, does it matter that what they present is not factual in order for the article about them to be factual?DanielZimmerman 03:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously the subject is notable. However, it seems that the group is not. At most, merge with Rumours_and_conspiracy_theories_about_the_July_2005_London_bombings. ScottW 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Valiantis 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above.--Jersey Devil 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons given above. CalJW 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename/merge - The article links to other sites where people question the veracity of the events on that day. I would be ok with combining this page with other pages that deal with conspiracies pertaining to that day. DanielZimmerman 03:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above. gidonb 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, verifiable, as much as the 9/11 version. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Striver. (I know he said Keep, but "emerging" means it doesn't exist yet.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1652186 18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScottW abakharev 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable yet. Merge and redirect per above suggested merge destination. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This specific organization has not done anything notable, even though they may be discussing notable things. --M @r ē ino 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it does not appear to be verifiable judging from the inexistent number of Google hits and lack of any actual references on the article. LjL 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - waste of wikipedia space. This is NOT a serious organisation nor a serious article. It's ludicrous that anyone with access to an internet connection could just create such a storm in a teapot. Nesher 21:23, 17 May 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.