Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 26

Guide to deletion

Again I have to agree that this article is not sourced, however thousands of others are not sourced either and the people at Wikipedia have no problem with them. Why is this one particular article so offensive to everyone's sensibilities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsxr1100 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is what happened. Except they were no "mini-nukes" but the regular 150kt nukes detonated 75m underground at all 3 towers. The infrastructure for it was built in in the 60's, and was required by building officials, since there were never built anything that strong in the history. The nuke weakens the inner structure of the tower i.e. the inner columns by a seismic shockwave. A regular explosive cannot pulverize steel, it can only cut or melt is. However a seismic pressurevawe produced by a nuclear explosion CAN. Then the tower inner structure falls into a cavity created by the bomb and the outer walls follow hence the near freefall speed, and very little debris pile and minimal damage to surrounding structures. The energy required to produce that amount of steel dust is exclusively consistent with a nuclear blast, the other explosives were auxiliary only and by far not enough to bring the towers down. The alleged planes were also for theatrics only, postfabricated into the newsfeed videos. No planes hit anything.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the article. I speedy deleted this article on 24 February per CSD A7 as the article made no claim of notability and didn't provide any sources. Nothing seems to have changed, and it seems likely that the editor will keep recreating the article to promote the church. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant promotion (even if it is for God), but seeing it had been speedied before, better delete it outright through AfD, and liberally season with sodium chloride. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a organization that doesn't assert notability and has so far proven to be unverifiable. I'd like to remind the author that promotion can be done without trying to convert people. Merely saying a place exists when someone wouldn't otherwise have known is promotion too. But that's not relevant the article already fails two basic criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable church, unverifiable, tastes like spam, previously deleted with no changes, WP:SNOW, etc... tagged as a textbook A7 and borderline G11Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (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.

Please note that four of these editors EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns are the same person, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]