Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors about 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 of the debate was merge with other articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Five out of the nine votes call for some kind of merge, with the vote count breaking down as follows: -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 18:27 (UTC)
 * 3 votes for straight deletion - the nominator, Radiant, as well as JamesBurns and zen master, (2 additional delete votes discounted; 1 is an anon IP's only edit; the other is a new user's 2d edit)
 * 2 merge and delete variants - Goferwiki and Project2501a
 * 1 straight keep vote - Ted-m (discounting keep vote from anon IP)
 * 2 keep or merge votes - Khym Chanur and csloat
 * 1 straight merge vote - cesarb

Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks
We already have three articles about conspiracy theories relating to 9/11, and this additional one about mere rumors is extremely unencyclopedic. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Condense this and all other conspiracy articles on 9-11 into one large meta-article, then delete this one. I like the organization of this article though. Goferwiki 14:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Where are the other articles on this topic? List them and let's get to work on condensing.  I agree it should all be one article but we don't want to delete information that is not duplicated elsewhere. --csloat 21:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be here: Category:9/11 rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above, merge all rumor and conspiracy articles together. --cesarb 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a rumour mill, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic and POV. Merge potential may be limited... zen master    T  09:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anything salvageworthy. 140.247.60.234 00:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 's Only edit. func (talk) 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)


 * Delete. The coverage of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda are not factual.
 * 's 2nd edit. func (talk) 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. while allegations are not factual, This is a list of RUMORS which play an important role in culture. Most of the rumors are debunked after their listing. Some should be edited to NPOV though. Nostradamus rumor recieved wide media coverage and rebuttal and is therefore encyclopedic. --Ted-m 30 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. I agree with Ted-m: even though the rumors are false, the existence of the rumors are encyclopedic because lots of people believe them.
 * Unsigned by func (talk)  7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)


 * Keep. Also agree with Ted-m.
 * 's 3rd edit. func (talk) 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge; see my comments above --csloat 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
 * Merge, delete. Structure of article is INDEED very good :) Project2501a 8 July 2005 00:32 (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.