Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Strategic Analyst On 9/11


 * 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. — TKD::Talk 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A Strategic Analyst On 9/11
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to have been previously deleted by prod. I can't put my finger precisely on what bothers me: it consists mainly of quotes from sources, some of which are listed but aren't linked. Google a quote at random, and you'll find it in one or more places. I can't figure out what the article is about, but it reads half like WP:OR and half like a wire report, with a dash of POV-pushing. The creator appears to edit mainly on national security and 9/11-related articles, and having looked at a few of them, I'm seeing some of the same problems, not least because the material from this article has been pasted into Bin Laden Issue Station and Strategic Assessments Branch at least. Kateshort forbob  12:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ---
 * It is a pity there isn't a facility for "aside boxes", for quoting material which doesn't quite fit into an article as the material stands, but which may well have relevance. I.e., to quote (say) the leading paragraph in another article (in this case, for example, Bin Laden Issue Station), which then has a link to the whole text (in this case,  "A Strategic Analyst ...").  I agree that the text of "A Strategic analyst" doesn't match Wikipedia's full page criteria, but it wasn't intended to stand by itself.


 * The original article, A Strategic Analyst on 9/11, had links for the quoted sources. I quickly "restored" the article without refinding the URLs.  (But this didn't stop it being deleted the first time round.)
 * There were only two sources. One is a pre-publicity pamphlet for a 2002 security conference, which features some of the statements on John Fulton.  The other is an Associated Press report which gives further information.


 * Is it perhaps the implications of this material that bothers you?

Frank Freeman 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No the implications don't bother me because I don't understand what the article is about. I'm not trying to be rude (and I apologise if it seems that way) - this may well be a failure in my understanding, but my reasons for nominating it still stand. -- Kateshort forbob  14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

-- I've reinserted the links. Frank Freeman 14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a content fork from September 11, 2001 attacks or one of its sub pages. Burzmali
 * Delete Unencyclopedic info, doesn't seem notable and includes OR. --Strothra 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A Strategic Analyst On 9/11 is an auxiliary page -- a page intended for quotation on other pages, with a link to it. Frank Freeman 10:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC) If there isn't a facility for such illustrative "sidelights", there should be.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have the same problem the nominator did. What is the encyclopedic topic? If you have to infer what the subject of the page is, it's not a Wikipedia article. Veiled suggestions of conspiracy do not make a Wikipedia artilce. MarkBul 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There seems to be no actual topic here - it's a rather indiscriminate and nebulous list of quotes which seems to allude to...well...something... --TreeKittens 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "(It may well be wondered why the National Reconnaissance Office would have a Strategic Wargaming Division.)" says it all. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, original ideas, commentary, speculation, and opinion as contained on that page. --Aude (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What is this? Mandsford 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote maybe?--Strothra 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, it just isn't an encyclopaedia artcle. Nuttah68 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, a mini-essay by the creator. Gazpacho 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks more like a report or some sort of essay with scores of OR to top it off.--JForget 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I tagged this for proposed deletion ages ago - seems to be mostly speculative commentary on a coincidence. It may well be wondered why Wikipedia would have an article like this.--Canley 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha!


 * 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.