Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Location of 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 no consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Location of Osama bin Laden

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Is an article stating that no one knows where Osama is. Doesn't seem to merit its own page. Would support a merge with Osama bin Laden Kntrabssi 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete / merge - This article has little to no proof to the whereabouts of osama bin laden, if anyone had a clue where he was it would be the government. besides, with how easy it is to edit and defame and or deface an article these days, this page is just asking for vandalism or worse, propagandization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.175.116 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
 * keep worthy of an article based on text, SYSS Mouse 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the topic is without a doubt notable as it is often the topic of news items. Also, the article appears to be well-sourced. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - "The whereabouts of Osama bin Laden are unknown" pretty much says it all. If an article consists mostly of "rumor has it" and "according to sources" then it's a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is just a collection of rumours and conjectures. What is of value - if anything - should be merged with Osama bin Laden. BTLizard 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This is one of the biggest issues in the world right now... If we have articles for a bunch of random stuff most people have never heard of, we should definitely have an article for this. BlackBear 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely if ever a good reason for keeping an article. Articles stand or fall on their own merits, not because there are other articles on stuff that you consider "random." Otto4711 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I still feel the article is worthy of the article. BlackBear 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Osama bin Laden after taking out unsourced rumors and OR.  Darth griz 98 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is full of speculation and OR. Feels a lot like crystalballery, just in a geographical sense.  A redirect to Osama bin Laden would be an acceptable compromise.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Where's Waldo? Christopher Jost 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An awful article based on blogs and other unreliable sources. if there's any legit info to salvage, put it on the main Osama page. Tarc 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any sourced information to Osama bin Laden. -- Whpq 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Osama bin Laden per Whpq and  Darth griz 98 . Scienter 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was going to say "merge", but every "fact" in the article regarding location turned out to be nothing more than a rumor, and several factoids don't even pertain to his location. I don't see how a collection of rumors would enhance the Bin Laden article. It should suffice to say that there have been many false reports of his death and unsubstantiated reports of his location. Djcastel 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-Bargit (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep verifiable information - merge if it ends up too short to stand alone (I don't have time now to follow-up but maybe I'll get back to it later today). A re-write is also in order: a heading like "Sightings" makes it sound like we're talking about Bigfoot.  Jakerforever 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepImportant topic, seems well covered. Robinson weijman 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Most of these sources are not reliable (in this case). Reliable sources do not base their reports on "rumors" and "our sources". Sure, the rumors are verifiable. But that is not enough. Remove the worst stuff and merge the rest to the main article. You can keep the "rumors" that are actually based on something, but if the source gives no information at all about their original source, get rid of it. --- RockMFR 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as conjecture and OR. If there's any useful information (I see none here) beyond that, one can merge it into the article on Osama Bin Laden. --Dennisthe2 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who needs this? Redirect to Osama bin Laden. Big  top  22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support a delete and redirect, for what it's worth. IMO, we don't need that in the history. --Dennisthe2 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge anything noteworthy into the OBL page, then delete the rest. Realkyhick 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, please note that merge and delete is not a valid option. --- RockMFR 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pointless since no one really knows where he is. The article is speculation and basically a list of sightings.--Bryson 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Reliably-sourced quotes to main article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main Osama bin Laden entry. MrMacMan 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to Osama bin Laden.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Osama bin Laden cs 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Osama bin Laden. After all the speculation is cleaned up, it seems that what remains would fit inside the section Osama_bin_laden. --JianLi 20:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the main Osama bin Laden article already covers this. Zerbey 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is identified as a sub-article in the main one on Osama bin Laden, but it needs work as the contnet of the current main article ought to reappear here. Alternatively, this should be retitled Alleged sightings of Osama bin Laden and be cross-referred with 'see also' at the end of the Location section of the main article.  Even the rumours are noteworthy, bearing in mind his notability.  Peterkingiron 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise good points, Peter, but to be perfectly honest, this is in my opinion an article that probably would work better merged to the main article (per my !vote above), if even that. Whatever I can say here at this point is already discussed herein, so I'll leave it at that. --Dennisthe2 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep DXRAW 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...care to explain? Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE.
 * Merge/Redirect to main article Mystache 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge only content supported by reliable sources, not speculation. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article does not cite any reliable sources, except for a single BBC URL, so there is nothing worth merging. Every merged fact would have to be independently checked, so you might as well forget what's here now and start from scratch. EdJohnston 02:01, 4 April 2007 (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.