Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thurn X (talk | contribs) at 11:35, 15 April 2007 (add "strong keep", tidy up format). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Judy Wood

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


This debate is about whether Dr. 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.

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) This template must be substituted.[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) This template must be substituted.[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. Dr. Wood's approach holds potential for actually explaining what happened, something that neither the NIST report nor any analysis based upon merely conventional explosives can do. That she has been attacked so massively and unfairly is a testiment to the importance of her work. If you doubt the seriousness of her research or the results she is attaining, then at least visit her web site at drjudywood.com and study it. To reject her without understanding her work would be wrong. —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) This template must be substituted.[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) This template must be substituted.[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]
  • 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]

  • Presumably you think that Steve Jones and I are notable, which is why we are included in Wikipedia. But he invariably mentions her and I discuss her work all the time. She is the single most qualified scientist--with degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science--to study 9/11 and I can assure you her work is of the highest importance. I have discovered that Wikipedia is something other than it claims and political considerations enter into your decisions. Well, as one who IS in the position to address the significance of her work, Wikipedia is going to look stupid--better, massively ignorant--if you include Steve Jones but exclude Judy Wood. That there are few contributions to this discussion is because it involves very technical, scientific issues. You can do what you want, but to exclude her BECAUSE SHE IS NOT NOTABLE is absurd. James H. Fetzer (again!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC). This template must be substituted.And, just for the record, while Steve Jones has around 40 papers, Judy Wood has published 60--and in far less time! I cannot abide comments that are based upon false information in dealing with controversial subjects IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! JHF[reply]


The intense interest in this very page may itself be further evidence of Dr. Wood's notoriety.
  • 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]
Dr Wood's attorney, Jerry Leaphart, has stated that NIST is legally obligated to respond to the RFC. See the press release: [1] Complete Truth 07:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Love to see what form that takes. Just on your comment below, I'm not comparing her noteworthiness as compared to others but to how many multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Could you please post a link to the New York Times or similar where they discuss Judy and her theories. thanks, Ctbolt 07:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpEdNews found Dr Judy Wood's work noteworthy. So did Rense. But unfortunately the chances of the NY Times publishing Dr Wood's information is very slim. I'd say the chances about the same as them publishing the fact that one of organizations NIST contracted with was Applied Research Associates, a manufacturer of directed energy weapons, and a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society. Complete Truth 02:11, 15 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 [2] 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]

I see that the photographs and video used in the article have just been deleted. Can't have people actually looking at Dr. Wood's evidence, now can we? These photos and videos are clearly, unambiguously protected by the fair use doctrine. Wikipedia ought to reinstate them forthwith. 68.122.147.56 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[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) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • The claim that her theories are "absurd" is a cowardly way to avoid confronting the evidence. Dr. Wood has presented a Request for Correction to the NIST that, in my opinion, is the single most important development in the history of 9/11 research. Here is a challenge to those who submit that her work is "absurd" (which means laughably ridiculous, a function of your personal background knowledge and beliefs), HOW DO YOU KNOW SHE IS WRONG? I submit that those opposed to her inclusion are scientifically illiterate regarding the laws of physics and engineering and massively ignorant about the facts of the case. This is one of those (truly) absurd situations where the less competent are judging the more competent! And I suspect more than a whiff of sexism is involved here, too. Who among you has credentials and publications that are comparable to hers and offer evidence that you are qualified to render such determinations? Who among you? I challenge you to read the press release from Scholars (http://911scholars.org/Scholarsfilechallenges.html) and continue to maintain that Dr. Wood is not a "notable person". Think about it. She is not a "crank"; and if you continue to exclude her from representation, Wikipedia will have reinforced the impression that it is untrustworthy because politics enters into its every determination, as this case reflects. .JHF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC). This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Comment The American Association of Civil Engineers has 130,000 members. Is there one of them which supports this directed energy weapon theory? If one argues that Wood's theories deserve credit because she is a former assistant professor then why do the opinions every other expert in the field count for nothing? She is the only 'academic' to believe this theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence to support this theory which is not better explained by more mundane and widely accepted factors. It is based on false evidence, false reasoning and is technically impossible for a whole host of reasons. Nick mallory 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[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]
  • Comment I spent an hour adding to the June Wood article. I didn't change any of the original article but I did expand the 'criticism section to deal with some of the points the theory raised. Naturally an unnamed editor has just removed everything I wrote. This is the problem with this sort of article. Nick mallory 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it merely expanded the criticism section to deal with each of the points raised by the article. It was based on facts, not supposition. For someone so keen to 'ask questions' and so opposed to 'suppressing debate' removing such material from the article seems rather strange. The fact that the original article is logically incoherent and based on 'evidence' which is easily explainable by other facts is the fault of the original hypothesis. Wikipedia articles have to be based on fact don't they? This is why this whole article shouldn't be on wikipedia. Nick mallory 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I just thank Zarcon for his suggestions re improvements to the article? After removing the first addition I made to it, he suggested on the article's talk page that I quote from the work of two authors who have written on the subject, rather than write my own precis of their critiques. Zarcon was absolutely right to do so and the section I worked on is infinitely better for it. Thanks again Zarcon for suggesting these improvements to the page. Nick mallory 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]

My goodness. Look at the voluminous section Nick Mallory has added to the criticism section of the Judy Wood article. Could so much criticism from so many "reliable sources" really be directed at someone un-noteworthy? Hardly. I request that Nick Mallory change his opinion on this RFD. Zarcon 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
I'd like to thank Zarcon for his kind suggestion that I change my mind over this issue. In respectfully declining his request I would merely point out that it is easy to write a considerable amount in a critique of a severely flawed thesis. The fact that I was able to cite so much criticism from 'reliable sources' is because there is a lot to be criticised in the hypothesis that a space based directed energy weapon of unkown design destroyed the World Trade Centre, rather than, say, planes hijacked by terrorists. His argument that my pointing out so many difficulties with the theory proves its notability is strange. I would remind him that he invited me to quote from these sources on the talk page of the article, so I accepted his offer and did so.Nick mallory 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nick, when you pointed out your criticisms, I deleted this original research from the aricle. When you did secondary research, citing Jenkins and Gourley, I left it in. I think it greatly needs to be consolidated, and we'll work on that. The point is, the fact that you can cite published sources that respond to Dr. Wood is strong support for the idea that she is notable. You can't have it both ways.Zarcon 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is supposedly about Judy Wood but there is virtually nothing about her in the article you wrote. She is not a notable person. As for the parts of the article dealing with her theory itself, you may think the article needs to be 'consolidated', I would disagree. There is no repetition in the criticism, merely closely argued logic backed up by evidence. The article would be greatly improved if you added some evidence to it on 'your side'. In the end, you do not own this article any more than I do, this is wikipedia, a peer based commons. It is not for you to decide what should or should not go in it and you don't have a final say any more than I do. I note that you have been unable to improve or expand 'your' part of the article to tackle any of the claims made against it, you merely wish to cut what I wrote. I am not trying to have it both ways, as I said the fact that a nonsensical idea can be easily debunked does not make that theory notable. I think the thesis itself is clearly absurd and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia of fact, rather than fiction. I am interested in seeing your independent, verifiable, non trivial sources for the existence of a giant space weapon able to destroy skyscrapers. Seeing as the article is presently included in Wikipedia I took the time to improve it by adding more information germane to the topic it addressed, even though that's not the topic of its subject - which is Judy Wood. I would remind you again that you invited me to quote from these two sources, and so I did so. I didn't edit anything you wrote and as space is not limited on Wikipedia I don't see what is to be gained from reducing the page of material I added. They tackle the points you wrote about, in detail, in the order that you wrote them. The fact that you can write so little in support of your argument, and I can write so much in support of mine, might give you pause for thought. Have you actually read what I wrote? I certainly read what you wrote, which is why I felt moved to refute it. You say that the extent of my criticism of the article proves its notability, but then say that criticism should be cut. Wouldn't that also cut the notability of the article? You can't have it both ways. Nick mallory 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ewing2001 writes: ::Wikipedians run many political double standards. The business of Directed Energy Weaponry started before 9/11. Almost 50 companies received contracts and developed the weapons, satellite tools, codes and additional equipment. Their names are: 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... ... 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... see also http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2963 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewing2001 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC). This template must be substituted.[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. The antithesis to this, which is just as notable is the way the media and professional organisations have for the largest part completely ignored the inconsistencies in the official explanations for the effects that were witnessed on 911. This makes Dr. Woods proposals even more notable. I notice that nobody seems to have a problem with STEVEN JONES having an article here, though he has done absolutely zero research of his own on the issues of 911, and his theory seems to be based solely on the assertion that thermite was the material used to destroy the WTC buildings, even though he has contradicted this claim himself when he quoted Greg Jenkins as saying that "it would take five times the total power output of the Earth to reduce the WTC towers to dust". Dr Wood has a much more definite case for being considered notable than Steven Jones. 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]
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. leschwartz
There's no ad hominem attack there. Everything I said was based on WP policy. The name calling is not in *my* comments. Pete.Hurd 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you use the term "raygun"? Do you consider Dr Wood's theory absurd? Do you not know that these weapons already exist and are being used? See here for links to multiple reputable sources. Complete Truth 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
The Directed-energy weapon article says "Some of these weapons are known as death rays or rayguns". "Raygun" requires less typing than "directed-energy weapon", in much the same way that "carbomb" requires less typing than "vehicle borne improvised explosive device". As for your question of whether I consider her theory absurd, I don't see why that matters. I consider many ideas absurd, such as creationism and scientology, that nonetheless belong in an encyclopedia. The template at the top of the page reads "This debate is about whether Dr. 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." for good reason. Pete.Hurd 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
===============================================================
  • 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 as well as the factual information concerning the existence of Directed Energy Weapons included in Dr. Wood's paper are extensive and creditable. 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.

Dr. Wood’s theory has been controversial and has attracted much attention on a national level. It would to the public detriment to exclude information about her from an open source encyclopedia -- a curious public should have the opportunity to educate themselves about a provocative and original theory and the person who conceived it.

A Google search for “Judy Wood Directed Energy Weapons” yields three hundred sixty two thousand hits. There is much public interest in Dr. Wood and her theory. Plainly, it would serve the public interest to maintain an entry.

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. In is not a "conspiracy theory" but purely scientific.

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

Dr. Wood's detractors often assert that DEWs don't exist and yet DEW research, manufacture and development is highly developed. The existence, development and manufacture of Directed Energy Weapons is not merely conjectural it is based in fact.

From the Directed Energy Professional Society website http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/extLinks.html -- links to corporate and other entities and indviduals involved in DEW research, development and manufacture:

http://www.aoainc.com/
http://www.aesys.net/
http://www.aegistg.com/
http://www.ara.com/
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/
http://www.aps.org/
http://www.aptec.com/
http://www.boeing.com/ids/mds/index.html
http://www.cpii.com/
http://www.csaengineering.com/
http://www.denergysolutions.com/
http://www.em4defense.com/
http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/
http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/ge...TI2766,00.html
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/nps/plasma_science.html
http://www.itea.org/
http://www.ionatron.com/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/fi...sp=fnec&ti=100
http://www.mri-rtp.com/
http://www.mza.com/
http://www.northropgrumman.com/
http://www.tosc.com/
http://www.osa.org/
http://www.raytheon.com/
http://www.schafercorp.com/
http://www.saic.com/
http://www.scires.com/
http://www.smdc.army.mil/
http://www.sparta.com/
http://www.spie.org/
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/sor/
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/
http://www.systems.textron.com/
http://www.trexenterprises.com/
http://www.tybrin.com/
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/

One of these entities, Applied Research Associates was contracted to clean up Ground Zero as well as to consult on the reports completed by the NIST. Clearly, the DEW theory is based in fact.

Dr. Wood certainly meets the criteria for notability as specified by Wikipedia:

  • Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.

o The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
o The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
o The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
o The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

It would be unreasonable to exclude Dr. Wood's innovative though unproven theory for Dr. Wood certainly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Dr. Wood challenges convention, provides an informed perspective and insight and so has elevated the level of discussion on these issues.


References:

http://www.drjudywood.com

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

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Thurn X 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC) signed - ThurnX[reply]

This template must be substituted. Pete.Hurd 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a YouTube vlogger called The Winekone more notable than Judy Wood? Andrew Lowe Watson 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the argument: "Other articles exist that may be less notable." We determine whether any article should be included here on the article's own merits. Please use arguments based in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:19, 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 Zarcon, the original writer of this article, removed a good deal of information critical to the theory because he argued that it had been written by a lawyer, James Gouley, who lacked the scientific background necessary to make his case. He seemed unaware that science is a method of thinking, rather than an attribute of a specific person. Zarcon did not point out in his article that the co writer of Wood's paper, a Mr. Reynolds is an economist. Therefore, by his own reasoning, Zarcon should remove all material pertaining to the theory on the basis that it was co authored by a non scientist who wasn't competent to write such material. Apparently this standard only pertains to people critical of the theory however, not its proponents. This might explain why the material was posted under the name 'Judy Woods' rather than in its own right. This allows Zarcon and others to use such specious arguements to suppress proper discussion of the theory. As Wikipedia rejects 'point of view' contributions and demands a 'neutral point of view' at all times, it is hard to see how such double standards by its proponents can be tolerated in an article such as this. I would be interested in seeing Zarcon's reasoning why an attorney cannot criticise a science paper co written by an economist before he summarily deletes such material again. Nick mallory 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judy_Wood&oldid=122964748"