Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks


 * 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, and merge Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Sandstein  19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks

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

Content fork of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On 5 April 2008, user launched an AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks  with this comment:
 * "This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors. The title of the article gives the impression that celebrations broke out in multiple countries all over the wold, however when you read the article you find that it only covers the Palestine's celebration. What relevant material here is already covered in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and there is no need for a separate article here."

The AfD was closed as Keep.

On 17 April 2008, user Imad marie started a new article named International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks which was later renamed to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On 24 April 2008, user Imad marie next launched a second AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks with the comment:
 * "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."

This second AfD was also closed as Keep.

Since that time user Imad marie has been trying to push through a merge of the Celebrations article into the Reactions article. There have been numerous CoI issues raised during the merge discussions and subsequent actions taken by Imad marie.

As I see it, the "Reactions" article was actually created as a content fork of the "Celebrations" article. The specific purpose of this article was to downplay (or elminate) issues brought up in the "Celebrations" article and replace them with pieces of material brought in from other articles such as Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September, and World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Due to the heavy COI influence shown by the primary author and the clear purpose behind the creation of this article I believe that this article should be deleted as a content fork. If the authors of this article wish to improve and expand the scope of the "Celebrations" article, that discussion should take place on the "Celbrations" article talk page to achieve consensus on the scope of any resulting changes. StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per my nomination --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Very strong keep Such an article is definitely warranted, even if its current condition isn't good, though the celebrations article should definitely be merged to this IMO, it has too small a scope, I would have said delete in that AfD myself.-- Serviam  (talk)  14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the Celebrations article into the Reactions article. Celebration is a reaction and as thus should be merged. Tavix (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge agreed, celebration is a kind of reaction. This will help maintain a non-point-of-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Tavix. mauler90 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Super-strength Keep. No valid reason given at all for deletion - of course the reactions from world leaders, other personalities and the wider public is worthy of an article here. In addition, the nomination appears based as well on some fairly odd thinking -
 * 1) How can a wider article possibly be a content/POV fork of a more specific article (celebrations being of course, by definition, only one type of reaction)?
 * 2) WP:COI refers to commercial or other involvement in the topic under debate, not to an editor having known views about a related article.
 * 3) This article was only created fairly recently because no proper article had been put together earlier, and it is wholly inaccurate to claim that it was built up from material brought in from existing articles and that the aim of the article was to "eliminate" or "replace" material in the Celebrations article. It was meant in part, yes, to provide some balance to that article - but isn't that what WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE are all about?
 * 4) How on earth is material about the condemnation of the attacks that is included here going to fit into an "expanded" article called "Celebrations of ...", as the nominator recommends?
 * Possibly the worst AFD nomination I have ever seen. Nor has the nominator notified people involved in editing the article that they have nominated it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As an additional comment, and just to clarify where I stand given that others have suggested it, my view is that not only should this "Reactions" aticle be kept, but that the "Celebrations" article should be merged into it (as has been suggested previously, and as in fact the substantive material mostly has been). The "Aftermath" article is a separate issue as it covers very different ground - practical issues and consequences that followed from the attacks, mostly internal to the US, as opposed to condemnations, comment or celebrations from around the world. --Nickhh (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Recommend merging the "celebration" article (which IMO, grants undue weight to the issue of celebration of 9/11 among disaffected Palestinians) into this one. the topic "reactions to 9/11" is likely to always be a lightening rod but the it is notable. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge"Celebrations" into "Reactions". Comment: User:StuffOfInterest makes it look like I had hidden agenda to eliminate the "celebrations" article, this is not true. I (and User:Nickhh) made it clear in Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks that the "reactions" article should replace the celebrations article. Comments like this and this were made before the creation on the reactions sandbox, so there is no conspiracy going on here. Imad marie (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge "Celebrations" into "Reactions," and flesh out "Reactions." There have been plenty of reactions to constitute an article separate from "Aftermath," as aftermath would cover circumstances beyond verbal comment and stated political positions as I believe are denoted in the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - IMHO a 'celebration' is a reaction but is also separate from "aftermath" and the content in both articles is enough to warrant a separate article in its own right, even if it is a combined one.  Taifar  ious1   22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep  It does not matter if one page was created before the other, Reactions to the September 11 attacks is the logically ordered parent article to Celebrations of the September 11 attacks, not the other way around. It is my further opinion that Celebrations... should be merged with Reactions..., and a poll is currently being conducted here. Please consider voting. ~ smb 21:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - Celebrations... into Reactions.... Consensus appears to be emerging. ~ smb 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - "Celebrations" into "Reactions". It does not matter in the slightest which article was created first; the latter is logically the parent article of the former and thus cannot be a content fork. Also, this AfD is a gross WP:POINT and a rather obtrusive failure to WP:AGF, but with consensus already moving towards a merge here, I guess it's a moot point. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, as a separate article, with no merges. Yes, a celebration is a reaction, but the "celebrations" story is a distinct controversy in and of itself, with sustained coverage and significant effect beyond the time of the events in question. Much of the coverage in the "Reactions" article is of very generic short-term type, such as condemnations by various heads of state and hightened security measures. Most of this coverage falls under WP:NOT category, but there seems to be just enough in the article beyond such short-term coverage to justify keeping it. By contrast, the "celebrations" story had sustained in-depth coverage that lasted months and years after the events, and is still continuing. Examples include, , [ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35516 ], etc. (the last one discusses a book that appartently also contains substantial coverage of the event). The issues of balance and neutrality can and should be addressed in the "celebrations" article itself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Content and POV fork, Imad has shown that she is unwilling to merge the information properly due to CoI and bias related issues so merging is quite out of the question. Also, duplicates material included in the "Aftermath of 911" article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it is not the reason for my vote, I must say that I am leading towards the view that any AfDs which comment extensively on the actions and motives of other editors, rather than the content of the article in question, should be immediately and ruthlessly closed. On point, "reactions to (major event)" spin-out articles are completely standard practice on Wikipedia - see 	Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings, Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Reaction to the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France, Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, etc. etc. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge The Celebrations article into the Reactions article. Setwisohi (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong with a "reactions" article. Its content is very different from both the "celebrations" and the "aftermath" articles. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 07:57, 12 July 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.