Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi role in September 11 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 delete. Consensus is that there is not currently enough reliably sourced content for an article, and that the allegations that gave rise to this one should be covered in the existing 9/11-related articles until there is more to write about.  Sandstein  15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Saudi role in September 11 attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Until the so called "documents" which talk about this role come to light. Until then everything is pure speculation. We can have an article on this when something substantial has been mentioned by WP:RS until then this is merely a coatrack with one sentence about the Saudi role coupled with a large amount of WP:OR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not yet an independently notable topic meriting an article. Any non-redundant material can be moved to Responsibility for the September 11 attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Very coatracky. Much POV. Brustopher (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed WP:TOOSOON for all this speculative content. If these allegations become substantiated one day, they should be added to Responsibility for the September 11 attacks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 is where any information about the "28 pages" should go to. IMO, having a separate 9/11-accusation article just for Saudi-Arabia feels like an attack page, especially if none of the other alleged perpetrators mentioned in Responsibility for the September 11 attacks has one and if this is all based on speculation around unpublished documents. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - per above, too early for this article.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting, very probably true, but unsubstantiated and not properly referenced. As above: WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RS and WP:OR--Petebutt (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Petebutt:Besides the ones I used in the article, I've provided plenty of sources here, as you see. Mhhossein (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (as page creator): I'd like to support my 'Keep' using following reasons:
 * The article is backed by several reliable sources which are directly related to the subject and hence the WP:OR speculation is not sticky here.
 * The WP:CRYSTALBALL claim does not apply here, because as we know, per crystal ball "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" and all what we have here are some well sourced facts related to the role of Saudi government in the event. Then the policy reads: " All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Although the subject is not an "anticipated event", it's clearly 'verifiable' and 'of sufficiently wide interest'.
 * WP:TOOSOON which is just an essay reads: " If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered," while it does not apply here because we've got enough sources for the subject.
 * To clarify the issues, I invite you to take a look at the sources directly about the subject
 * Rudy Giuliani suggests Saudi Arabia WAS involved in 9/11 attacks and reveals he was offered $10million... by Daily Mail.
 * Maher on Saudi involvement in 9/11: 28 pages prove ‘we definitely attacked the wrong country’ by Rawstory.
 * How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11 by New York Post.
 * 9/11 Victims, Saudi Arabia & Iran -- De-link Compensation from Accountability by Nationalreview.
 * Do you want more? yes? Here you are:
 * New allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11 by CNN.
 * Obama under pressure to release secret pages of 9/11 report 'showing Saudi Arabia financed attacks' by Telegraph.
 * Movement pursues the ‘real story’ of Saudi involvement in Sept. 11 by Washington Times.
 * 28 pages: the controversy over Saudi Arabia and 9/11, explained by VOX.
 * 'Document 17': Declassified US govt memo suspects multiple Saudi links to 9/11 attacks by Russia Today.
 * Some other reliable sources!
 * I think the article just needs to be completed using above sources. Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rename. Per Mhhussein's sources. Well covered. However Rename to more neutral "Alleged Saudi involvement in September 11 Attacks". Or "Release of Classified documents of possible Saudi involvement in September 11 Attacks". Caseeart (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:TOOSOON Orser67 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON specifically only applies when (and because) there are no verifiable sources. Here there are many many highly qualified verifiable sources. Caseeart (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to add this fresh source to the list. This one is also noteworthy. Mhhossein (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't set up a new page making these kinds of allegations on the basis of two senators talking to the press. Repeated, reliable sources, well explained in the article with multiple independent sourcing, will be required. Preferably peer-reviewed academic sources (our highest standard). Until that material is fully released we're just violating TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL. Merge the two senators' comments to another appropriate article, delete the remainder. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete since it is misused conjecture based on a few comments in one interview. It's pure conspiracy theory.--MONGO 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as all still questionable for its own solid article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but should be written, as in fact for now there is only the lead and the aftermath.Axxxion (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep- Even if we understand in future that Saudi have had no connection to the 11 September attacks, we need this article because it is a notable subject supported by many many reliable sources and Mhhossein presented some of them. I think it's not too soon because of the sources and we can have the article. I see that notable analysts such as Porter and Bahgat (not just two senators) have discussed the role of Saudi Arabia, so why not having it here? Another possible scenario is that we have it as a separate section of the main article, then we have to split it as it's large enough. So, we'd better keep it.Saff V. (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The reasons listed for the deletion have already been rebutted by the article's creator as inapplicable to the article in question. There is therefore no substantial evidence that the article should deleted in the first place. IMHO, the real reason for this article being brought up for deletion is because some editors have personal "feelings" about the content in the article. They disagree with the content because it goes against the "narrative" that they themselves believe about 9/11. Regardless of any reliable sources to the contrary, these people will always revert to their narrow personal beliefs and will continuously seek to hide from any reliable evidence that is provided. Because WP is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, we must remember that our own personal beliefs about a subject are irrelevant. We must refer only to the reliable sources that we have. Likewise, we cannot "censor" information (which I have seen done on the 9/11 attacks article) from reliable sources simply because it contradicts information from a previous source. This brings to mind the many current events articles such as the Boston Bombings, the San Bernardino bombings, the Paris Attacks, etc., on which WP editors did not at all hesitate to make rapid edits shortly after the event occurred, regardless of whether or not the information in the sources proved to be accurate. As new information came out, old, incorrect information and their sources were removed and replaced by new information and sources. Imagine if, in these instances, editors had refused to update the information in these articles with new information and sources simply because the new information contradicted the old information that was currently there. We would never make any intellectual progress, the encyclopedia would become outdated and inaccurate, and we would again be stuck with a "narrative" that may or may not be the truth (according to secondary sources; we cannot independently verify information ourselves, WP:OR). This ties back to the "conspiracy theory" argument, that "this is just a conspiracy theory". However, similar to above, whether or not this truly is just a "conspiracy theory" is irrelevant for the purposes of the encyclopedia. If reliable secondary sources provide information claimed to be factual, then to us, this information is necessarily factual until proven otherwise (again, be careful of WP:OR). Even if contradicting sources exist, I strongly believe that it is worthwhile to keep both sets of information (in some form or another), even if only for a historical reference to the contradiction itself.


 * —  The J J J unk  ( say hello ) 15:28, 30 April 2016 (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.