Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about, in essence, a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Pakistani individuals conspiring to support bin Laden either directly or through a conspiracy of silence over a 5 year period. It has no substance and can be included easily in the main article. It is also,by definition, classic Conspiracy theory rubbish; "which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article and its title do not suggest anything other than well-referenced allegations. It does not appear to be developing a conspiracy theory.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. If this is a conspiracy theory, it's an extremely notable one. In the last week, it's been discussed in The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, and the New York Times. President Obama discussed this with Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes this week: "We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don't know who or what that support network was. We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we have to investigate, and more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - a classically well-sourced article about a fringe theory that has gotten significant coverage. If it blows over in a few weeks, we'll be left holding a deflated balloon, so I'm not 100 % sure we want to keep this one.  The title itself needs work, but that can be solved through the normal proposed move process. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. Events are still in motion regarding the death of bin Laden, and this is a big piece of the puzzle. President Obama's remarks essentially validating this theory are worth mention, as well. If we have a deflated balloon when the dust settles, we can merge or delete as appropriate - but, for now, we have the sources and the depth of coverage to justify the article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep: The persons in favor of pakistan, want to blank the topic by deleting the article, this is very widely covered topic in media. http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=support+system+in+Pakistan+for+Osama+bin+Laden&oq=support+system+in+Pakistan+for+Osama+bin+Laden&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=13112l13112l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l It must be kept. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fringe whining that does not need to be forked away from Death of Osama bin Laden. What needs to be said about this particular angle is covered sufficiently in the Death article. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article stinks, but the question of a support system has been raised by many national leaders. The Death article isn't the proper place to describe how bin Laden allegedly lived near Abbotabad for five or six years. Death of Osama bin Laden should be pretty much one sentence: "The Pakistani authorities were not told of the U.S. mission, for fear of leaks." Could perhaps be converted to a "List of allegations" article, since—if you filter out all the OR and SYNTH—all we have at this stage is opinions with no connected narrative. - Pointillist (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep article needs to be improved.  clearly not a Fringe theory and has substantial coverage in mainstream sources and easily verified.  putting all these allegations in the parent article would give undue weight to these allegations which are unproven as of yet.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * definite keep supported in its importance by prominent people, conspiracy theories widely reported in the media can have articles here. A potential merger target is Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories, so there is a target to put this content in.  However there is enough for a stand alone article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep well-referenced article. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Speculation by individual editors has no place in wp.  In contrast, speculation reported robustly in RSs throughout the world is "verifiable", and is certainly appropriate fodder for a wp article.  This is even more the case where those who are speculating include notable people and "experts".  Speculation stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. These allegations are now being reported in large quantities and at the highest levels and is now the subject of several government inquires. If you want to argue that it is a conspiracy theory, then presently it is a notable one.    8digits (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if it should turn out that no one in any Pakistan institution aided bin Laden, many institutional leaders in other countries will likely not believe it. That will affect international relations for quite some time. We can't ignore this important fact, eliminate it, or suppress it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete' All the important information is included in the "Death" and "Reactions" articles. This article is just an arena for Pakistan's supporters and detractors to snipe at each other. Brmull (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not a conspiracy theory at all, given the coverage and references from reliable sources. - Max - Talk 14:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is one of the most important issues in world affairs right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I agree with users Max and Dr. Blofeld. This issue is of worldwide interest and the coverage and references from reliable sources puts this well out of the "conspiracy theory" category. I would also say that this "allegations of bin-Laden support in Pakistan" topic is important enough to have a separate page for (rather than merging it with the "Deatrh" and "Reactions" articles, as Brmull suggests). This topic is large enough, different enough and interesting enough to be kept separate.Obsidian123 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Santa Claus. An article's subject is not grounds for deletion, only its contents. It is well sourced, no matter how silly it is. If you have issues with the article, such as a lack of sources, POV issues, etc. bring those up on the page, or at least mention them in the AFD. There is no legitimate reason given to delete this article. — MK (t/c) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep There is nothing in your guidelines that suggest this article is worthy for deletion.  It meets EVERY SINGLE requirement necessary to be relevant to Wikipedia (see guidelines.)  Far from being "silly," this is a well-documented and serious article that is in the world's media day in/day out.  Any attempt to delete this article would be a serious breach of Wikipedia's self-proposed guidelines in order to satisfy a minority opinion regarding political/cultural sensitivities that have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not said article is educational, relevant and/or useful to the world's interested internet users.  Thanks.60.38.115.29 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been in the news repeatedly for weeks, making it clearly notable and has very reliable sources backing it up. TheWilliamson (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.