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. Consensus exists to keep the content, but perhaps not at this title. Merge/move can be discussed at the articles' talk pages outside of the AfD process. Shimeru (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors about the September 11 attacks

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be nothing more than a random collection of gossip and false or mistaken reports concerning 9-11 that would not be notable in a stand-alone article and of passing significance in a separate article. The few exceptions are either covered much more elsewhere or don't even fit in the subject in the first place (e.g. the Iraq mention). Essentially this article serves no real purpose. I cannot imagine a redirect that would be adequate or merger that would be necessary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it could use some better sourcing but it's not devoid of reliable sources. Seems to pass WP:N. Tisane (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the VfD from 2005 said to merge and redirect to the conspiracy theory of 9/11 article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an encyclopedic purpose for a sourced article that clears up misinformation by citing to reliable sources, although arranging it and putting a title to it is another matter. No matter how open-minded one may believe themselves to be, I think it's impossible to write about the 9/11 attacks without getting into POV issues. Unlike opinions, factual information can be shown to be true or false, and entire books have been devoted to tracking down the origin of misconceptions (the bestselling The Dictionary of Misinformation, by Tom Burnam, is a notable example). People turn to a reference work to find out what the facts are behind any statement, and Wikipedia is, ultimately, a work of reference. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps combine with the conspiracies article into Alternate views of 9/11.--Supertouch (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What is this, 9/11 conspiracy theories Part Deux: Wilder and Wackier ? Salvage whatever useful bit there are (IMO, not much) into 9/11 conspiracy theories and delete the rest. There's really no valid justification for keeping a content fork. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mandsford. A perfectly fine article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Appears to be an unnecessary content fork.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This topic contains essentially two references that could be construed as having anything to do with conspiracy theories. Most of it is just unproven or disproven claims, including inaccurate casualty estimates. I would not call conspiracy theories rumors either, they're not equivalent terms. I see no reason why this needs to be a redirect for anything. Is anyone honestly going to look for "rumors" about the attacks if they are looking into the conspiracy theories?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup - only notable rumours should be included, and those that cannot be sourced should be removed. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2010 (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.