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 keep in the sense of "not delete". AfD is a process to determine whether there is consensus for an article to be deleted or not. Such consensus is not apparent here. But it's up to the community to determine whether there's consensus to merge this article somewhere else, and if so, to what extent the article should be merged. I suggest that this determination should take place on the article talk page(s), as is usual for merger discussions. Sandstein (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors. The title of the article gives the impression that celebrations broke out in multiple countries all over the wold, however when you read the article you find that it only covers the Palestine's celebration. What relevant material here is already covered in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and there is no need for a separate article here. Imad marie (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is certainly not aproppriate. However, the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks does not mention Palestine at all (at the moment). I therefore propose a merge (the whole section is very short anyway) . --Tone 10:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is some more about it in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Still short, though. --Tone 10:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the title not appropriate? That's exactly what they are. Call a spade a spade.

The title gives the impression that it covers celebrations from multiple countries. What we have here is reports about a couple of thousands of Palestinians who celebrated. Is this enough to create an article about it and call it: "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks"? Imad marie (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it's not enough for an entire article, but why isn't it enough for section called "Celebrations" in the aftermath article? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only material we have concerning "celebration" is the Palestinians', and I'm not sure if a couple of thousands of celebrating Palestinians is worthy of a section. Also please note that the Palestinian reaction was mixed, while some celebrated it, the Palestinian Authority and media condemned both the attacks and the celebrations as well. My suggesyion is to merge the content in the section International Reaction of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Imad marie (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. Agreed. :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a new section under the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, a disputed and relatively minor footnote in the history of 9/11 doesn't need a whole article. We should probably merge Post-9/11 there as well. <eleland/talkedits> 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Not a significant enough event for a whole standalone article. Yes mildly interesting, but it only needs a mention as part of a wider "Reactions to .." section or article (and that should have far more focus on the overwhelming expressions of sympathy that came from most quarters, including the Middle East; as well as highlighting any "celebrations" from other places other than the one or two mentioned here). --Nickhh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and I meant to say as well .. cut the volume of material back drastically, otherwise it will overwhelm any article or section it is merged into, and the WP:UNDUE issues will remain. --Nickhh (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • you seem to be arguing two incompatible positions - on the one hand, claiming the topic is not significant enough to warrant a standalone article, on the other hand saying there is so much information here that if it is merged, it will have to be trimmed down. You really can't have it both ways. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Er, no, I am being utterly consistent - these were minority events of marginal notability, being hyped by Wikipedia editors who want Palestinians to be portrayed collectively as celebrants of mass murder. They deserve neither a whole page nor a massive subsection on another page. Pretty simple point really. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • How is it possible to describe this as "marginal notability", when the article documents coverage by all major US news stations, and international media , sources to more than 2 dozen reliable sources? What criteria for notability are you using? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It wasn't just Palestinians (or Muslims) who celebrated. Even non-Muslim people in Canada and the USA celebrated. Kevin Potvin and Westboro Baptist Church for example. Andjam (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This received coverage on every major US TV news station, as well as newspapers the world over, as documented by the multitude of sources in the article. In fact, it was so notable and noteworthy, that a subsequent controversy arose, over allegations that the TV footage was faked. To Imad's point - if it's true that it was only Palestinians celebrating, we could rename this to "Palestinian Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Keep the facts mentioned in the article happened and were part of the headlines of the headlines of the news services around the world. User:Lucifero4
• Comment to I am Dr. Drakken and Lucifero4: an event being covered by media does not mean that it has to have its own article. Imad marie (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper etc etc. --Nickhh (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The every first line of our notability policy is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." This topic clearly meets this criterion. What exactly is the policy being invoked to delete this clearly notable subject? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply 1) "It is presumed" is a very different statement from "It is [definitively]", presumptions can be rebutted. 2) You should also read further into the notability page - "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"--Nickhh (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Indeed, presumptions can be rebutted. How about you start? It seems that there is significant coverage, so what is it that makes this non-notable? This was not a short burst of coverage - as the cited sources show, they lasted quite a while, and as I noted in my comment, they were prominent enough to launch a separate controversy, with some claiming the footage was faked. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The notability of this event is not what is being debated here, what is being debated is WP:UNDUE, and that this event certainly does not need an article about it on its own.

Imad marie (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'm glad we agree that notability is note an issue (Nickhh please take note!). With regard to WP:UNDUE, the policy says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." - I don't see anything here that justifies article deletion. If you want to quote some reliable source that presents an opposing view point (i.e - that these weren't celebrations) - go right ahead. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, you were the one who first used the word notability here, I just responded to that. And actually I think it is an issue about notability (or the lack of it). These demonstrations were relatively minor events - briefly newsworthy at the time, but not significant in the long run. Therefore having a whole article about them here is in turn an issue of undue weight being given to this reaction/alleged opinion. It's got nothing to do with any debate about whether the events referred to were or weren't celebrations. And it's also about WP:POVFORK too - this page has so many issues I lose count. --Nickhh (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand but the celebrations of the September 11 attacks were a part of the reactions like the expression of the regrets.(User:Lucifero4)

• Merge with the reactions article. I can't even think of a way to retitle this article without setting off NPOV alarm bells. This would also become (if it isn't already) a soapbox/vandalism target. 23skidoo (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Luksuh 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as the article is short and don't looks like it will be expanded. A lot of it is also about other reactions and about allegations of celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. // Liftarn (talk)
• Keep. The nominator claims "The title gives the impression that it covers celebrations from multiple countries"; how on earth does it give that impression? The article should cover notable celebrations, wherever they occurred; if it happens that they only occurred (or were only sufficiently documented) in one area, or only by one set of people, so what? How does that put the lie to the title? -- Zsero (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If it can be documented that the Phelps family held a celebration at the time, that could go in too, since I suppose anything they do that gets reported is inherently notable. I'm not aware of any such celebration, though; they certainly expressed approval of the attacks on later occasions, and continue to do so to this day, but that's not the topic of the article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Quoting you from the article talk, this is your definition for a celebration : "Dancing, handing out candy, openly declaring joy". According to your definition, do we have other groups who "celebrated" the attacks? I think not, and some editors will make sure no other "acts of approving the attacks" will be included in the article in their anti-Palestinian campaign. Imad marie (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - if nobody else can be verified as having notably celebrated, then nobody else will be included; why is that a problem? How does the title imply anything about how widespread the phenomenon was? -- Zsero (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notified on main 9/11 article - here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep --the article asserts celebrations in various countries and seems to have multiple good sources for it. As I see it, the opposition to this article is political. DGG (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The celebrations are very notable, and have lots of good sources. The topic is very notable, and the topic does seem to me to be notable enough for its own article. Yahel Guhan 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge An entire article based on the repetition of one single media report (the infamous cake-video), which was likely staged, by several media outlets? I think not. pedro gonnet - talk - 07.04.2008 06:58
• Comment Please see how some editors are trying to use this article to produce undue weight in other related articles as well. Imad marie (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, exists as WP:COATRACK at the moment, don't I recall Arafat donating blood to the 9/11 victims? Let's not focus on "a random civilian who lives in country X". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could provide additional sources on that topic, that'd be good. To be honest, I'd be surprised if he were eligible to give blood, based on his age. Andjam (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not entirely clear if Arafat gave blood or just made a show of giving blood, but RS (BBC) support the "made a show out of donating blood". Regardless, he certainly was not eligible being extremely sick, and a number of Palestinian officials have also said that he died of AIDS. This is in the article best I'm aware. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge BUT if some pressure group try to remove the information when they are merged (arguing wp:undue), the article will have to be restored. Ceedjee (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reply: Really? So you think that three one-off alleged celebrations by a few thousand people deserve around ten paragraphs in an overall reaction section; compared to the current one or two paragraphs that cover every single expression of condolence, sympathy, including candlelit vigils in Tehran, official statements from governments and organisations across the world including the Middle East, annual public commemorations and silences in the years immediately following the attacks etc etc? Or maybe Wikipedia is just here to tell the world what evil and horrible people all Palestinians are. --Nickhh (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Then, any merge vote must be considered keep. See below Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commet - I agree with Ceedjee. This is the big problem here, where a group of people want to see the material gone even though it was published on so many RS major news outlets. I haven't decided if a merge or a keep is best, but I certainly won't support a 'delete' motion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply No one wants the material gone, however the way how it is presented now is WP:UNDUE, and if it decided to be merged then it should be presented in its fair balanced weight. Imad marie (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Currently WP:UNDUE ? That is not possible. An article cannot be wp:undue. Only an information in an article can be wp:undue because in that article too much weight would be given to one point of view. The decision to keep or delete an article is rather link to the notobility of a topic : does a given topic deserve to be developed ?. And the criteria to analyse in mainly linked to the secondary sources linked to the topic.
        • Here, the consensus is between merge/keep. So, it should not become delete arguing WP:Undue after merging. I hope my point of view is more clear.
        • If somebody is against the total merging, then he must agree with the existence of the article. Because one of the reason why articles are created is to put in them the information that could not stand in an article because it create a pov-issue there. Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Let me reword, the article is WP:POVFORK and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia. Imad marie (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be wp:povfork but I don't think it is because this is not an analysis. povfork is rather when the same material is dealt and analysed of 2 different ways because editors cannot agree about how to introduce this respecting npov in the same article.

Here, the article focuses on the celebration, ie the reaction of contenment after the 9/11... This phenomenon existed.

What should people do is to find more 2nd sources discussing that reaction by some political analysts or sociologists. I am sure there are some. I already read this. Also, the context should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. See to it that reliable sourced notable material is not deleted.Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is sourced. Is notable. Deletion is not the answer to NPOV violations. POVFORK allegations are too easily made, and deletion is not needed to fix them even if true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (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.