Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood

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 delete. Single-purpose account arguments have been disregarded, and most of the keep arguments given by those accounts are attempts to defend the subject's theories without addressing the notability of the subject per any guideline or policy. This is not a debate on conspiracy theory; Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battleground. --Coredesat 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Judy Wood Phd.

[edit]
Judy Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)


This debate is about whether Judy Wood's article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
This is not the place to discuss the merits or truthfulness of her theory.
Please base your arguments on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  • Delete: This is not a biography. It's a discussion of Dr. Wood's hypotheses regarding the events of 9/11. It should perhaps be a sub-section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I'm not opposed to a general biographical entry for Dr. Wood, but this is not that. This is a protracted discussion of one very specific aspect of her work. To argue that this is just a biography entry is disingenuous and indicative of an agenda, in my opinion. And this entry's formatting is embarassingly poor. E.g., what's with the academic credentials being blocked at the beginning like that? --Skidoo 12:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored long comments to the talk page of this AFD because it is very long and disrupts reading of the day's AFD page. This is not an assertion that those comments are incorrect or less important. When contributing please try to place a sentence or two with your keep/delete opinion on this page with longer comments on the talk page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Wood believes that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by "directed energy weapons." She presented a paper to that effect at one scientific conference. The article, however, gives no sources showing that either she or her theory are notable. NawlinWiki 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For openers, it is requested that all editors refer to Dr. Wood using the academic title to which she is entitled, that is "Doctor" and/or "Ph.D.". Dr. Wood is a Ph.D. in mechanical and civil engineering, and believes that the twin towers were destroyed by energy weapons. The combination of these two irrefutable facts alone is noteworthy. Furthermore, she has filed an RFC against the NIST, this too is noteworthy on its own. Dr. Wood has appeared on various radio interview shows, again noteworthy, and these are in the process of being added to the article. Dr. Wood and her theory are so noteworthy, in fact, that a Ph.D. physicist, Greg Jenkins, has written a lengthy article attempting to discredit her. It is hard to imagine Dr. Jenkins investing such effort in someone not noteworthy. Zarcon 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Strong Keep: Ph.D. says energy weapons. This is notable on its face. RFC, Interviews, conferences, etc. all just add more weight. Zarcon 03:08, 14 April 2007, 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (author of article, voted twice so far)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: No plausible assertion of notability. Frankly, I rarely vote to delete anything for this reason, but the subject's theories are absurd, and absent notability, should not be publicized further. I will add that the request that the subject be referred to at all times by her academic title contravenes Wikipedia's style guidelines, and should be totally disregarded. (Disclosure: I live and work in Manhattan and cannot view grotesque conspiracy theories about the events of September 11th dispassionately; it required an exercise of willpower on my part not to speedy this as soon as I saw it.) Newyorkbrad 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! None of you could possibly be qualified to explain WHY her theories are supposed to be "absurd"! Indeed, she is in fact the most highly qualified scientist who is studying the destruction of the World Trade Center. Steve Jones has issued many promissory notes about thermite/thermate, which cannot be cashed in. [remaining comments refactored to talk page]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC). (has only one other contribution besides this AFD) This comment was contributed by James H. Fetzer, Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Notice that a disciplinary journal has been devoting its resources to attacking her, which means that her work, no matter how controversial, is indisputably important. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.42.26 (talk • contribs) (only other edits are to James H. Fetzer)— 71.117.42.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete - No assertion of notability. Having a Ph.D and believing 9/11 was a conspiracy, does not mean notability.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all theories of 9/11 are conspiracy theories, you must know that. Zarcon 03:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please, let's not turn this into a 9/11 conspiracy debate, this is about Judy Wood.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, you brought up conspiracy.
  • Delete While her theory may be notable for the attention it has gathered, Dr. Wood herself does not appear notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further review of the article, I realized that 90% or more of it is about the theory. So Keep and rename to The Star Wars Beam Weapons theory or something like that, remove the "Academic positions and conferences" and "Interviews and media appearances" sections and rewrite the lead. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per her publications/articles. comment: if she is deleted because her theories are absurd, i'm afriad David Hume would have to go as well. the_undertow talk 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A crank, yes, but apparently a notable crank, based on the amount of Web publicity and the fact that a real scientist actually took the time to refute this nonsense. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The theory may be notable, and is probably discussed somewhere among the various WP articles. But nobody is notable simply for proposing a 9/11 theory. The ordinary rules for academics apply to JW:
  1. she is (or was) an assistant professor, and assistant professors are rarely notable unless they have done exceptional scientific work, recognized as such by the scientific community.
  2. She has published zero peer-reviewed journal articles. She has written a thesis, but all beginning scientists do, as an academic exercise; the publishable parts if any are published. She has delivered a paper at a conference. That goes as a minor element of one's CV; even if published it doesn't count as a paper, because peer-review is usually minimal, and hers' has not even been published. She gave an unreported lecture. She asked for input to a government document, and filed a statement. That is not notable.
  3. Journal of 911 Studies, which claims to be peer-reviewed, is published by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Their web site indicates strong internal feelings pro and con the question of whether the utter implausability of JW's studies imperils their work. For those inclined to get involved in such things, that group seems well worth an article. But in my opinion neither being published nor attacked in that journal confers notability on anyone or anything.

In conclusion, she has a few strong-minded friends and opponents, but nobody outside that small circle knows of her or thinks of her as notable. She may become a notable crank, but she isn't there yet.DGG 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless Wood's theory gains some sort of widespread acceptance, or even widespread denouncement, it is no more significant than the dozens of quasi-scientific claims made about the WTC collapse. The sources presented to substantiate claims of notability include self-published material, and a minor internet-only journal. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia will become a laughing stock if it becomes a repository of absurd conspiracy theories. Arguing that her baseless allegations are notable because she has a PhD is the logical fallacy of arguing from authority - which she doesn't have anyway. A wikipedia article like this will be used by conspiracy theorists to 'prove' that their ridiculous charges are gaining popular, even official, sanction and wikipedia's good name will be trashed in the process. Nick mallory 07:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Unless there is a response to the RFC or there is coverage by "multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" this needs to be deleted. - Ctbolt 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! - Dr Wood's credentials show her to be more noteworthy than most, if not all, other 9/11 researchers. She is definitely more educated than Jim Hoffman. Her directed energy weapon theory addresses much more evidence than Steven Jones. Those who are voting in this "articles for deletion" page should become acquainted with the facts about her theory. This can be done here [1] by clicking on the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" link at the top. (Those who believe NIST did a thorough investigation are indeed ignorant to the facts. NIST admitted on page 82 of their report that they didn't even analyze the "collapses".) It's really amazing how so much effort is being used to discredit/silence Dr Judy Wood and her theory. Perhaps she's on to something?? Complete Truth 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Ignoring established credentials, POV on the "theory", calling on emotionality, passing judgment from a layman’s education on "theory" presented by credentialed authorities like Dr. Wood is contrary to the stated objectives of Wiki. Presenting one side of an argument sets precedent for strong bias that is also not an objective of Wiki. The "delete" factions are clearly playing on POV, discrediting credentials without any proof that such credentials may be want, and playing on emotions rather than validity. 911 Eyewitness 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— 911eyewitness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - this article is about the theory, not the author, and if it's to be kept should be kept under the theory. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate any notability for Wood in and of herself - "assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina" is not an assertion of notability. Furthermore, this article is completely unsourced, and the only sources any of the editors !voting keep above are offering are her own website and press releases. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG's convincing argument. Unless reliable secondary sources exist, attributing Wood's case and claimed notability, this article just becomes naïve theory description, and WP an extension of Wood's likely desire for publicity. MURGH disc. 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Dr. Judy Wood is well on her way to becoming a significant historical figure. Her theory that directed energy weapons (dew) were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex relies on the visible record of the event and, more recently, upon an analysis of the corporate contractors that were relied on to prepare the governmental report on what caused the destruction of the WTC. The primary contractors used are, themselves, at the epicenter of the military industrial complex, including the main developers of, you guessed it, directed energy weapons.

It matters little whether Wikipedia keeps its entry on Dr. Judy Wood. After all, the powers that be certainly do not want the public to perceive that directed energy weapons were used to destroy the WTC. Why, if that were ever to become a part of the public's awareness, think what the outcome would be? I'll stop with that.--Jplotinus 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (note: this is User:Jplotinus sole edit to Wikipedia)[reply]

  • Delete. 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. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Iridescenti's points are cogent. As much as some people seem to want to turn this into a debate on 9/11 theories, this is about the concept of notability. No evidence is presented that Dr. Wood's theories have been discussed widely and publicly. It's as simple as that. -- P L E A T H E R talk 14:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If you do not delete Woods will become notable by your decision. Notability is under your control. So let us forget the notability criterion for whether or not to keep the article. Deletion is the right course because Dr. Wood ray gun theory is a either a hoax with extreme political consequences that you will thereby be perpetuating; or else an honest theory that has not gained acceptance either by the scientific community, by the media or by the 9-11 investigation culture. You will be declaring her not only noteworthy but also consequential -- taking sides what may be a deliberate disinformation effort to discredit those who actually have uncovered clear stong evidence poining to a false-flag attack on 9-11-01. The fact is that even her supporters say merely that she deserves to be heard, not that she has the best evidence of the 9-11 crime, not that she has distinguished herself. Is there solid achievement? No. Is there future historical significance because of a controversy -- possibly a cointelpro op? Yes. Should you assist the cointelpro op if there is one? No. Dick Eastman M.S., M.A. .


  • Strong Keep I am very surprised at the assertions that Dr Wood is of no significance within the 911 Truth community. We can assume here that everyone agrees that, whether it is to their personal taste or not, such a community exists and includes many thousands if not millions of supporters. Because the debate takes place largely on the internet does not make it less of a reality and a historical fact.Our personal and emotional responses to the theories are completely irrelevant. If a figure like Dr Wood attracted the amount of interest on the internet that she does, in any other field, there would be no argument. Why should September 11th be an exception to this?

I offer these search results from Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,910 for nist "judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 1,050 for star wars beam weapon "judy wood ". Results 1 - 10 of about 177 for nist rfc " judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 802 for billiard balls "judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for world trade center "judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 551 for directed energy weapons "judy wood "Andrew Lowe Watson 15:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also draw your attention to the fact that she has received strong support from two other Wiki-articled figures in the 911 truth community, DrJames Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds. Her work has been mentioned in many of the leading video films about the attacks, including Loose Change and 911 Eyewitness.Andrew Lowe Watson 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The thoery, no matter how crazy, seems notable... either her page needs to be kept or a seperate page on the article needs to be started. Monty845 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands, almost the entire page is devoted to the theory. It would be very easy to rewrite/remove the one or two short sections specifically about Dr. Wood and move the page to a title about the theory. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It is indeed notable when an academic proposes a theory that goes against official standpoint.

Add to that the fact that the official standpoint has failed to explain and in some cases completely ignored the anomalies that Dr Wood says are explained by her theory. [remaining comments refactored to talk page] 82.23.139.49Coffinman

  • Delete. Ph.D.s having wacky theories is not in and of itself notable, and self-published theories on web sites are not reliable secondary sources of notability. The academic paper and letter in a journal by two others debunking her theories are such a source, but not enough of a source to convince me that anyone takes her theories seriously or that she's an important part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory world. Put it this way: if we were evaluating a non-crackpot Ph.D. for notability using WP:PROF, one self-published paper with only two citations would be very far from satisfying that guideline. —David Eppstein 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first of all, nigh-on 90% of this article is not about Judy Wood. What is about Judy Wood is not notable. Furthermore, this article provides no sources which either assert or support that her theory (let alone her) is notable. --Haemo 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading the same Judy Wood article? 100% of it is about her. Of course it is about her work and her theories, practically all notable person articles are primarily about the work, for that is what makes them notable. Could you please elaborate on what you find not to pertain to Judy Wood? Zarcon 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the independent, verifiable, non trivial sources which back up any of the claims made in the article? Just because someone comes up with a theory with no rational basis doesn't mean they, or their theory, is notable. It doesn't matter how many 'truthers' pile on to the debate here. Secondly, why did you remove the information pertaining to the Attorney's critique of this thesis? Science is a process, not an attribute inherent attribute in a person determined by qualifications. He tested the hypothesis against the evidence and found it wanting and clearly explained why, that is science. Your attitude is more centred in faith. I request that you restore this information. 124.183.228.151 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - clearly the arguments for delete are ideological, defensive, and are attempting to argue by ridicule. Anyone researching the controversies over the official account of the incident will have to know about alternative theories and who advanced them. Judy Wood’s work has been distinguished in this regard. If you really want the Wikipedia to be a laughing stock and irrelevant then delete Judy Wood and all references to everyone else who has had the temerity to offer alternative accounts of the 9/11/01 events. This attack against Judy Wood is a rear-gard action, too late and too biased to have any effect. The public does not trust the official account, and this entire subject will be an important topic to cover openly and in an unbiased way. Delete Judy Wood, and you lose all credibility about Wikipedia's capacity for objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.190.55.208 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC). signed leschwartz[reply]
  • delete per David Eppstein, she's not notable as an academic. Comparisons to Steven Jones are simple WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and dismissable on those grounds. This article functions as a soapbox, which is what Wikipedia is not. If the raygun theory is notable then an article (establishing encylopedic notability) should be on that topic, not Judy Wood. Pete.Hurd 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[responses to this comment refactored to talk page]

DO NOT REMOVE MY COMMENTS AGAIN! signed leschwartz
Ad hominem attack. The sort of thing your side has to resort to. Judy Wood IS notable in the development of the discussion of these topics. What this is really about is your sides attempt to fashion Wikipedia after your biases about the 9/11/01 events. Judy Wood is a fact and her presence in the public debate about this topic is notable. When your side loses be as vociferous in ensuring the accuracy of the coverage and you will have made up a little for your efforts towards intellectual dishonesty. Specifically, I mean hiding facts, attempting to make people you disagree with disappear is the worst sort of intellectual crime.
They use the term "raygun because that is all they got, ridicule. In fact DEW weapons exist, and there is substantial evidence to show their presence in the 9/11/01 events. But that really is beside the point. This is about enforcing neo-con views on Wikipedia. People, some people who think and investigate for themselves are dangerous. theories which counter the official line are dangerous. Such people, such theories should be made to disappear. leschwartz

— Leschwartz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leschwartz (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC).\[reply]

re:— Leschwartz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leschwartz (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
This is not true, the leschwartz id is new, further this is another form of ad hominem attack, without ad hominem attacks, attempts to demean Judy Wood or attempts to ridicule the topic of DEW, and aside from ridicule aimed at persons, the delete crowd has nothing to say. This is indeed the reason the Wikipedia has such a tarnished reputation for lacking objectivity. If Wikipedia insiders don't like a topic or person for ideological reasons, out come the ad hominem attacks, and those who put up another viewpoint find their comments deleted by those who can not counter the comments with persuasive responses. I leave your comments untouched because I have higher standards of honesty in debate, further your comments help me make the contrary point. These are the frequently used tactics, a campaign to delete the person, or topic will be mounted and ridicule, ad hominem attacks against all who disagree will take place, in the name of - wikipedia - standards. Such campaigns are entirely transparent, you are not fooling anyone with these campaigns, and deleting another contributors comments again during the discussion; intellectual arson. signed leschwartz, lhs_emf@pacbell.net
  • Strong Keep

Whatever merit Dr. Wood’s theory has it certainly is significant since it has created much discussion in the scientific community, passionate support from some as well as many aggressive efforts to discredit it. This theory is closely documented and argued in great detail.

In fact, the visual evidence and the arguments that she makes as well as the factual information concerning the existence of Directed Energy Weapons is extensive. While it remains to be seen whether or not Directed Energy Weapons powerful enough to disintegrate one hundred story buildings exist, Dr. Wood has taken steps to verify this hypotheis by contacting individuals in the Directed Energy Directorate to elicit their opinion on whether or not the phenomenon observed in the World Trade Center attacks are consistent with the effects that would be caused by Directed Energy Weapons.

A Google search for “Judy Wood Directed Energy Weapons” yields 362,000. hits. Plainly public interest and discussion of Dr. Wood is significant.Dr. Wood’s theory has been hugely controversial and has attracted much attention on a national level and it would be unreasonable to exclude information about her from an open source encyclopedia -- a curious public should have the opportunity to educate themselves about a provocative and unusual theory and the person who conceived it.

Dr. Wood’s theory is scientific and not political. She does not speculate about who might have been responsible but limits herself to her theory and a discussion of the physical phenomena observed and recorded.

Dr. Wood has published her theory where it can be viewed and critiqued by her peers, her critics and the general public. Her theory provides an informed and unique perspective on unusual physical events whose cause have been the cause of much discussion and dispute for nearly six years. Consideration of her theory invites reconsideration of other theories thus catalyzing a more detailed, critical and objective dialogue on the subject.

A frequent charge by critics of Dr. Wood is that DEWs don't exist. The Directed Energy Professional Society website lists numerous companies and individuals who are involved in this technology: http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html

We aren't talking about the Cardiff Giant here. Dr. Wood has composed a credible and well documented theory. The theory is notable and Dr. Wood is notable for having concieved it. The public interest is well-served with an entry on Dr. Wood.

http://www.drjudywood.com

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

Thurn X 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Thurn X (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pete.Hurd 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, the article is far too much focused on the theory, and not on the person. An article about the theory *might* be notable, I don't know. Right now, this is a hash. Delete if not sourced to references that actually deal with the good doctor and pared down so it's actually biographical. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG Baristarim 05:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 WP:N or WP:ATT. 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. Edison 05:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable. A Google search on "judy wood" + "trade center" produces 432 unique hits (first 100, 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. --A. B. (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nick Mallory's complaint was moved to the talk page of Judy Wood.
  • Delete The truthfulness of her theories are not what we are supposed to discuss here. If she is to be included on wikipedia, she must be noteable. Notebility requires multiple, independent sources. Dr bab 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether or not the article's kept, the photo on the page is a clear delete: Caption "Judy Wood in a white hat"; fair use tag "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. Furthermore, having an alternate theory about what happened to the World Trade Center does not make someone notable. Also, the article is almost entirely about the theory itself, and not Judy Wood. dcandeto 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. There is tremendous interest in Dr Wood and her work, therefore it's more than appropriate for wikipedia. People want to know who she is, and get information about her. Wikipedia is the place for that. It is wikipedia editors responsibility to have information that the public wants. The "reliable sources" guideline is a secondary issue, as long as there are no slanderous-type comments. People are interested and want the information. Google searches prove this. Complete Truth 08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many of the Keep votes are now arguing that we should disgregard the usual notability criteria in this case. These voters may be new to Wikipedia, and may not know that the notability criteria aren't waived for any article. They are a natural extension of Verifiability, a central guiding principal which says that all information on Wikipedia must be able to be verified from reliable sources, to confirm that it is true and accurate. This isn't a 'secondary issue,' it is at the heart of what Wikipedia is. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's job is to get information that people want out in the open, and to do so from reliable sources. This means if there's two newspaper articles, one in the New York Times, and the other in the National Enquirer, then obviously we'd pick the Times. But this is not the case here. The reliable sources in this case are those where the information can be found. The wikipedia article should be a representation of all the sources. People want the information. Complete Truth 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of material already in reliable sources. Extensive use of primary source documents constitutes original research, which is unacceptable. JoshuaZ 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On what basis do you claim "this is not one of them"? A former mechanical engineering professor at a mainstream university files a Request For Correction (RFC) with NIST. The RFC is archived on a US Government website. The former engineering professor is represented by a mainstream attorney. There was an official PRWEB press release issued. Do you wonder why the New York Times has not picked this up? I'd like you and everyone else to take the time to watch this short 10 minute video. After that, I'd like your opinion on whether "exceptions to basic notability criteria" apply in this case. If you don't believe so, I'd like to know why. Thank you. Complete Truth 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no exceptions to the basic notability criterion, as the presences of mutiple reliable sources is the only way we can have a neutral point of view article with no original research that is verifiable by mutiple Wikipedia editors. Without attributing statements in articles to reliable sources, anyone could just write whatever they want on WP and there would be no independent peer review of articles, leading to an unreliable encyclopedia. Leuko 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by ewing2001

As pointed out earlier and then censored and wiped by wikipedia, the whole idea of wikipedia is an Orwellian Operation, where nothing honest gets established. Judy Wood has theoretically the same right to appear at wikipedia as Professor Jones, who are actually was working on the same weaponry, wikipedia not only denies but also ignores that wikipedia has their own entry about directed energy weapons. Since you will erase my entry again, i am not interested how this Issue will be solved anyway, but for those who are accidentally will caught my entry: Here is the evidence that Directed Energy Weaponry was already a business for at least 50 companies BEFORE 9/11: http://www.911researchers.com/node/403 The 9/11 StarWars ExoW CoverUp: Why NASA and NGA was part of the Perp System

http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2963 [StarWars: ExoW incl. DirEN directly plus aviation weaponry]

Boeing ("Team ABL"), Lockheed, TRW, General Atomics, SPARTA, Inc., Ionatron, Rockwell Collins International, Mevatec/BAE, Ball Aerospace, Allied Signal, Hughes, EMS, United Technologies, Comlinear plus Israeli co-contractors Elbit/El-Op and IAI/Elta....


[StarWars: logistical contracts of any kind ] ... BoozAllen Hamilton, Research Planning, Inc./BTG ("Eagle Alliance"), CSC, ACS Defense, CACI, Compaq, TRW, Windemere, Fiber Plus, Verizon, Superior Communications, Veridian ("Logicon TASC team"), Advent Systems Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corp., Advanced Engineering & Sciences/ITT Industries, RDR Inc., SRS Technologies, Washington Group/Raytheon, Titan Systems Corp., Delfin Systems, SAIC ("Digital Network Intelligence Enterprise Team"), Northrop Grumman, Telcordia/SAIC and others.


... -Many smaller start-up companies during Summer 2001 had been linked to production of other unconventional weaponry (exoW), i.e.: Positronics Research LLC, in Santa Fe, N.M (AntiMatter Weaponry) Nanoenergetics Inc./NovaCentrix (Nanothermite Weaponry)

(see also http://www.911bloglines.com/node/61)


http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/meetings.html (all conferences , workshops of DEPS etc...) ...


this quote: "...We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That?s why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms...."

Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command (1994-1996), Joseph W. Ashy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_W._Ashy


http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2982 DoD budget 2001 plan had "new line item for Directed EnergyTech A new line item for Directed Energy Technology would be funded at $ 32 million...


http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2982 NIST hooked up with Defense Company specialized in Directed Energy

http://www.atp.nist.gov/ https://www.mepcenters.nist.gov/cims2-web/pub/ss.mep?sfc=1&state=read&UN... Activity Period: 2004-2

"... Center Name: Missouri Enterprise Story Title: Clean Earth Technologies, LLC, Designs for the Future

"...CET has broad experience in optics, photonics, ...directed energy technology,...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewing2001 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As has been said before multiple times and is in the box at the top of this page, this is not the place to debate the truthfulness of Dr. Judy Wood's theory. Per WP:V, truthfulness has nothing to do with inclusion on Wikipedia. This debate is about whether Dr. Judy Wood, the person, is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Whether directed energy weapons exist or destroyed the WTC is irrelevant for this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion or research; it's an encyclopedia. Also, no comments here were censored or "wiped". User:Stifle moved some of the longer comments to the talk page for readability reasons; all comments are still accessible in the page history. Finally, please put new comments at the end of the page to make the page easier to read and to avoid splitting discussions. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you joke when you say "leading to an unreliable encyclopedia". Take a look here. Wikipedia is already unreliable, in that most everything on that page is factually wrong. I offer the animation at the top of this page as proof - definitive proof - that Dr Wood is 100% correct when she says the towers were dustified. The still shots in that animation are confirmed by ALL other photographs, and there's NO contradictory evidence. The towers did not collapse. They were dustified. Therefore, it should be obvious that the sources used in this wiki page are NOT reliable. The sources for Dr Wood's page are definitely MORE reliable! Complete Truth 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 WP:BIO 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. — Scientizzle 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems to be a prominent advocate of alternate 9/11 theories, and the publication of a thesis on the topic is significant. I see no reason to remove the article. - grubber 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 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 WP:BIO 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. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Alucard Sleep On It 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following are the criteria for inclusion as an academic, with my comments added. Dr. Wood meets five of the six, while the guideline only requires one of the six.

Criteria

[edit]

If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Independent source James Fetzer, Ph.D. has called Dr. Wood the "most qualified" person to research 9/11, which is her area.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

All 9/11 researchers are aware of Dr. Wood, her importance is documented by her many strong supporters including Jim Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds, and also by her critics such as Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman. Love her or hate her, Dr. Wood is an important figure.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].

"The Star Wars Beam Weapons" paper is significant and well-known. All prominent 9/11 researchers are well-aware of it.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Along with the "Billiard Ball Example", the Beam Weapon paper, Dr. Wood's collective body of work is significant and well-known in the 9/11 truth community. She has spoken at several conferences, and will speak at the upcoming conference Aug2-4.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Dr. Wood is responsible for the important new concept that energy weapons likely were used to destroy the twin towers.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Well, not yet.

Zarcon 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note as substantiated through reliable sources. No WP:RS are present, and thus none of the criteria are met. Leuko 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, the problem is that 9/11 research is blacklisted from the mainstream media generally. You cannot pretend that it does not exist. Dr. Wood is notable within the 9/11 research community, her field. Precedent for inclusion of 9/11 releated matters has already been set. Scholars for 9/11 truth has survived RFD, despite the same lack of mainstram sources. 68.122.147.56 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud. First, "9/11 research" is not "blacklisted" by the "mainstream media". There have been multiple articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other major "mainstream media" sources. Second, even if this material was "blacklisted" it would be irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. If we don't have any reliable sources discussing the matter then Wikipedia can't say anything about it. The 9/11 scholars article survived AfD because it had been mentioned in mainstream sources, not despite it. JoshuaZ 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: At the risk of stating the obvious, I feel the need to point out a crucial concept: If Dr. Wood is to be evaluated for notability as an academic, it must be within her academic field. She is not a professor of 9/11 Studies, but of mechanical engineering.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Please cite sources demonstrating her agreed-upon significance (not competence) in the field of mechanical engineering.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

This field is not "all 9/11 researchers", but mechanical engineering.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

Her work may be "significant and well-known in the 9/11 truth community", but that's irrelevant to her academic credentials. If my English professor happens to write one-act plays, he may be "significant and well-known in the one-act play community." But it doesn't mean that his plays are academic publications.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Please note that there are no caveats. Not "significant and well-known in the 9/11 truth community," but in the world as a whole.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Again, this pertains to the field of mechanical engineering.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Well, we agree on this one! P L E A T H E R talk 03:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Article Title?. The article is titled Judy Wood, yet the article is almost completely about her theory re: 9/11; only the first paragraph says anything about her. In other words, there is little about Judy Wood being noteworthy. However, her theory has proven to be noteworthy (although controversial), as witnessed by the articles' verifiable references to others who have criticized her work. Therefore, I suggest that the article be renamed to Dustification (that's what best describes her theory) and the initial paragraph changed to describe the theory, not the author of the theory. Truthanado 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a classic technique used by 9/11 coverup perps. Discouraging people from even thinking about Dr Wood or her work. It won't work anymore. Complete Truth 06:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press article mentioning Dr Wood and her 9/11 work: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2279963 Complete Truth 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may point it out, Wood is not the subject of that article, which is more generally about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. There is one paragraph about Wood's theory, and one quote, on page three of the four-page story. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dr Wood's website attracts on average nearly 1,000 visitors a day: on a single day in March it had 85,000 page views and 45,000 visits. Of course this is not nearly enough to satisfy the stringent requirements for notability.http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s10yogi1&r=33. Andrew Lowe Watson 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ There is no objective criterion for establishing that a publication is "widely" cited. Wikipedia editors should consider not only the absolute number of citations (as provided by a citation index) but also the number relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important.
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judy_Wood&oldid=1219345690"