Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rumors about the September 11 attacks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I previously nominated this page for deletion on the basis that this article is just a random collection of rumors and gossip, most of it not independently meeting notability. Despite a year and a half passing by it appears this article has undergone little change in this respect. I would add that I think WP:NOT would apply in this case as well since most of these rumors had only fleeting notability (like the chain e-mail warning about the bombing of malls on Halloween). In the previous discussion a redirect or merge was suggested, but the material in the article runs the gamut from random conspiracy claims and allegations about links to Iraq to inaccurate casualty estimates and Internet memes. While some of the information could be reasonably accommodated elsewhere, I can think of no particular article where a redirect or merge would make sense. So I am once again nominating this article for deletion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I find it particularly telling that this is the only "Rumors about " page WP has. WP:NOTGOSSIP (1&3). Anything usefull can be merged to Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks before AfD's end. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note there are two other articles I could find covering rumors, but those articles are similarly useless. One was created before Saddam Hussein was captured on rumors about him being killed. The article does not have any citations and basically covers information that is or could be included elsewhere. Another mentions rumors about Sesame Street, that again includes information that pretty much gets covered elsewhere. I think both of those articles should probably be deleted or redirected.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is where Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks redirects. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge statements that are referenced properly into other articles. This look's like a collection of material that was not suited for other articles because of lack of sourcing and/or  bad sourcing.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - mention of points can be placed in other articles, if need be, after careful scrutiny and proper citing. Kierzek (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we merge content, don't we have to keep a redirect for author attribution? Tom Harrison Talk 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think there is any real need to merge any information. The only information I can think of that is worth keeping is already covered in essentially the same amount of detail, or was never considerable enough to justify including so much material anyway. However, the redirect would only go to one article and, if there is any information on here worthy of including elsewhere, it is most likely going to be distributed across multiple articles instead of just one.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2011
 * If no contributions are copied and pasted anywhere else, there's no requirement for a redirect. On the other hand, blanking and redirecting is easier and can be done immediately, and maintains the incoming links. The title Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks is okay, it's just the content that is problematic. Tom Harrison Talk 12:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Smerge and move on with life. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2011 (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.