Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Group


 * 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   redirect to 9/11 Truth. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Q Group

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Lacks reliable sources WP:SOURCE going to the truth of the matter
 * Possible WP:HOAX
 * All Backlinks apparently added by the author
 * WP:FRINGE     bsmithme    05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect Since the one author is the only source it clearly doesn't require its own article, but certainly information on the subject can be included in the article on the author.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right--redirect was a more appropriate suggestion. --     bsmithme    06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above. I'd go with the notes on any conspiracy theories behind 9/11.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * - Yes, only one person wrote the report about this, but it's also been covered by a mainstream media source. I'm not opposed to a redirect, but only as long as the bulk of the article is merged into the directed page. Somebody keeps deleting this entire page and then not moving any of the information onto the parent. Miserlou (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, at the risk of sounding like a loon, is it worth bring up that because this article's topic is related to internal secrecy and suppression of information, does that change the way this should be arbitrated? Miserlou (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been redirecting it and if your only problem is the information not being moved you can do that yourself since it will still be included in the page history.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not redirect (and undecided about keeping or not). That would be like covering an earthquake under the TV station that reports it first. This seems to suggest a delete but it is only a guideline and not everyone sees it that way. If the source is judged to be reliable, keep it, if not, delete it. The question is of course whether such claims will ever be sufficiently verifiable. But if they aren't they shouldn't be covered in WP, true or not true. --Pgallert (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect no 3rd party sources, reeks of WP:FRINGE. 2 says you, says two 13:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources, Hoax?, I'm not sure about that. but it certainly seems WP: FRINGE to me. The lack of reliable sources is the key thing. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (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.