Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (2nd nomination)


 * 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 without prejudice to continued discussion about a merger. This was an ill-considered renomination. Again, AfD is not the proper forum to discuss mergers. The WP:POVFORK argument would not seem to apply, because as of this writing the subject of the "celebrations" article is merely addressed in a brief section in the "reactions" article, which is in keeping with WP:SS. (That's not an opinion about the content at issue, including its merits, encyclopedicity or neutrality.) Sandstein (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have already nominated this article for deletion three weeks ago, the result was "not delete" and a recommendation to discuss merging the article. So why am I nominating the article for AfD again now? Because a new article has been created: International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and discussions happened on whether to merge/delete the celebrations article, no consensus was reached about that, and that's why a deletion review is needed here. The way I see it, the celebrations article is a content fork of the international reactions article, and arguably a POVFork, the celebrations article covers a minor event in the context of the reactions to the Sept 11 attacks, and does not include any significant information that the reactions article does not. Imad marie (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep if there is no consensus to merge, then I'm going to guess that there wouldn't be a consensus to delete. This isn't a very good article, all things considered, but it doesn't need to be deleted.  I think that consensus has to be reached over the merger proposal in order to move forward.  We can't just compel action with a smaller group of people on afd. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)  I don't mean to say that I don't think it should be merged.  It should--that way it doesn't give undue weight to the negative reaction.  but that isn't the function of afd. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability appears obvious, but can we do something with that title? Ecoleetage (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The thing is, this article is part of the sensitive Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and consensus is almost impossible to reach, and that's why a deletion review is necessary here. I acknowledge that the celebration is notable, however it doesn't deserve a separate article for it. Imad marie (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't we be more worried, rather than less, about compelling action in the absence of consensus? Protonk (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is nearly impossible in this case, for political reasons, and that's why the review is needed here to decide whether it's really fair to have this topic as a stand-alone article. Imad marie (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it's notable and referenced. Granted, it would probably be best to merge, but we don't delete just because consensus to do so can't be reached. - Koweja (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is a disgrace to the project. I've pointed out several severe problems and been told they've been fixed. Nothing has been fixed and the article is a racist polemic. There seems to be at least one loud-mouth editor who wants it to be this bad. 86.156.111.207 (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article provides many sources to different reliable and notable newspapers, it also gives an accurate insight to who celebrated such a horrible event. Atyndall93  |  talk  08:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my comments in each and every debate on this topic. Now all the relevant mentions of these incidents are in a full Reactions article, this page simply represents needless duplication of material, and is a clear breach of WP:FORK. Please can anyone "voting" here actually compare the two articles before giving their opinions? The only justification for keeping it as a standalone page is to highlight a negative view of Palestinians based on the apparent actions of a small minority, which is obviously not a legitimate justification. Just because a couple of events happened and were reported on several years ago does not mean they need their own Wikipedia page - as I have pointed out before we do not have equivalent articles focusing on controversial Israeli comments or commemorations, for example in respect of the King David hotel bombing, or the Shehadeh killing, or Baruch Goldstein. And nor should we. --Nickhh (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there is nothing to merge, all the significant information is already covered in International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and there is no need for a fork article.Imad marie (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious POV fork. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. After a quick read through it this article clears up some common misconceptions about people in the Middle East and 9/11, but it still needs some editing. PÆonU (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify or explain the "clearing up misconceptions" point? And clarify whether you've read the other article which also includes all this information? --Nickhh (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I meant is that it clears up a common misconception (which, sadly, a lot of Americans have) that all of the Middle east was celebrating and having a good time after the 9/11 attacks. The article in question doesn't come off as anti-Palestinian to me, but I understand the issues and realize that not everybody in the Middle east is an evil terrorist so my opinion of whether or not it is. This article confirms that only a select few actually celebrated afterwards, but it's more complete than a small section in the big 9/11 article. It would clog up the reaction article to add this entire page into it, but without all that extra info I don't feel like there's enough to the story. Celebration of the 9/11 attacks is a big issue and need a big article. And also, there's nothing wrong with highlighting what SOME people did. The FLDS is molesting kids, but that doesn't mean all Mormons are child molesters. --PÆonU (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you see the article as not being anti-Palestinian, the article concentrates on the celebrations by a minority, and it ignores the fact that most of the Muslim/Arab leaders condemned the attacks. The way I see it, this article is a clear POVFork anti-Palestinian propaganda. Imad marie (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep Simply because the person who nominated this article for deletion forked off another article which could address some of the more general, and possibly overlapping, reactions is no reason to delete this article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Previous AfD closed only on April 12, 2008, the verifiable topic has real world notability, and the article interests our readers.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. It doesn't need its own POV fork and fits well within the general one. Do we have Celebrations of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence (of which there was no shortage), no we have International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. It's a well established formula that has been used for ages. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rename/Merge, move most of the material not sourced to advocacy site quotefarms to the new article, or move that material here, its immaterial. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was already suggested for deletion beginning of this month ! Whoever suggested this again, Jimbo himself, should be blocked for WP:POINT ! Ceedjee (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - see below, response to B.Wind. --Nickhh (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - We shouldn't have the same article nominated by the same person over and over. If there is a problem with the new article... nominate it. Gdavid3 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wikipedia is not the place to spread pro-Bush and pro-Abu Ghraib propaganda.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as nomination seems to be in bad faith by the editor who brought the first AfD less than a month ago. Discussions of potential merges are best done on the article talk page, not here... but proposer was "told" this by closing admin Sandstein upon the closing of the first AfD. Oh, Imad marie, a deletion review is done only to determine if the action or process of a deletion or AfD is done correctly... and not at WP:AfD. B.Wind (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - no, this nomination is not in bad faith and perhaps you should read up a bit on the history of what's going on here before making that accusation. The reasons for bringing a second AfD (which is clearly what this is rather than a formal deletion review, even if those words are used a bit loosely above) are clearly explained by the nominator. Nor is there any attempt to hide the fact that this is a second nomination. It has been difficult to work out the best procedure for what to do here, because everything has happened back-to-front (ie the "fork" article has existed for a long time, and the wider and more balanced article has only just been created and now expanded). This has led to several merge or delete processes, which have taken place at different points in the development of the bigger "Reactions .." article. Not to mention different advice from different people - eg here the nominator was advised to go for AfD, if all the relevant material had already been merged (which it has been, since Sandstein's original closing comments). --Nickhh (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close, no merge bad faith nomination. Imad nominated the article for an Afd 19 days earlier, and it was closed as "keep", and he now nominates it again! Clearly this is an example of bad faith. There also is not consensus at this time for a merge.  Yahel  Guhan  20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A second AfD, within 3 weeks of the failed first one, nominated by the same person, who has been advised on proper procedure by admins but ignores that advice, gives rise to legitimate claims of bad faith. That aside, the article is well referenced, and the events themselves easily meet our notability guidelines. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, about bad faith accusations: No, this is not a bad faith nomination. In my opening comment I made it very clear that I already nominated this article for deletion before, and I made it very clear why I am nominating the article again now. Now with the "reactions" article, we have nothing to merge, all significant information is already covered, in a balanced way. I would remind here that most of the voters in the first AfD supported the idea that there was no need for a fork article. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks now that broader article exists. The information is notable and verifiable so should not be deleted - it's just in the wrong place. If the broader article had existed first, there would have been (IMO) strong consensus to merge this article into the broader article earlier. The fact that the broader article was created later should not alter the appropriate action. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep merge discussions belong elsewhere. So do problems with POV. DGG (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (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.