Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11, 2002


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn as userfied, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11, 2002

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is this a hoax or just a bad idea? Where is the evidence and references?Ydntop (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * delete, possibly as speedy for hoax. Site referenced is file not found. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - There's one source and it's a bad link. Could we get an admin to delete this immediately, please? -- NINTENDUDE 64 02:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only source provided is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, no sources whatsoever. The article has been basically the same for almost five years. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No currently accessible sources on the date, article on Hassan bin Attash does not confirm the date, has some of the same (non date) material.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Coatrack. The article is really about Hassan bin Attash. BigJim707 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * tentative Keep' pending clarification of the reference and a check on the date. I note this AfD is the nom's first contribution to Wikipedia, so he may not know that  GeoSwan's referencing is almost always correct, though documents such as this move around frequently, and he, like all other editors, make errors.  I do not think he has ever introduced any hoax articles on any subject, so it's a pretty odd assertion from a new editor.   As for the other deletion reasons, we do not delete articles because of broken links, we fix them. Nor do we delete articles because they  have remained the same for 5 years. Whether we might want to remove this article because its not really necessary as a separate needs some further thought, but if the date can be verified, and no other captives that date can be verified, it can be merged into the article on the person. If there are other captives, they of course should be added.   DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As the sole contributor of intellectual content I am going to userify this stub. No, it is not a hoax.  I started this stub  57 months ago.  In those five years the wikipedia's standards have become stricter.  In those 5 years I have become much more experienced, and my own personal standards are stricter.   If I were starting this article today I would have entitled it Karachi safe house raids.  We know about some important safe house raids   There is the recent safe house raid where Osama bin Laden was killed.  I don't think there is any question that this was the most important safe house raid.  There are only a few other raids or sets of raids we know a lot about.  The March 2002 Faisalabad raids netted Abu Zubaydah and half a dozen captives who were to face charges before the military commission system.  The Karachi raids netted another half dozen key al Qaeda leaders, and important computer files, including lists believed to be of the real names of hundreds of recruits who attended al Qaeda training camps, lists of passports, financial records, and other key information.   I strongly suspect that an article on the Karachi safe house raids is not only viable, with enough work it might even qualify for good article status.  But I cann't afford much time to work on it during the afd process.   Hence userification.  After userification.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:34, 14 September 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.