Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline for September following the 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   keep. The word "arbitrary" is thrown around a lot, but there's not really any case made that it applies. Irregardless, numbers favour keeping, and Uzma Gamal and Colapeninsula rightly point out that chronoligical article series may reasonable use arbitrary but convenient end points so my Grandma can still read them with her dialup. Wily D 15:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline for September following the September 11 attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Timeline is unneeded and is better served in Sept 11 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 24, 2012‎
 * Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard deletion templates and the unsigned template. The nomination was listed in a daily log, however due the its malformation it was not noticed as nomination, and was blank for a considerable portion of the listing time, so I am adding to today's log. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty  845  15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - While interesting, this unsourced blow-by-blow is effectively a news summary. There is no logical endpoint, the bloated federal bureaucracy, raging federal budget deficits, illegal military detention centers, expanded internal surveillance apparatus, mass public paranoia, etc. continue to this day. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite. It's fairly arbitrary to make the cutoff point the end of September, at any rate. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Long-standing, interesting article. I see no reason to delete. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:INTERESTING are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. The nominator seems to have missed out a bit of WP:BEFORE which, while not necessary (or even appropriate) in most deletion discussions, should have been regarded as vital here - checking the history of the article and how it is supposed to fit in with the other articles on the September 11 attacks. And the Delete !voters so far seem to have followed suit. This article is part of a restructuring of Timeline of the September 11 attacks carried out in early 2003, leaving a short summary there and splitting the detailed timeline, originally assembled in late 2001, into a sequence of articles, in which this one is immediately preceded by a timeline of the day of the attacks and succeeded by timelines for October and later. Deleting this article without touching the others would create a gap in the detailed timeline for one of the most important periods - the immediate aftermath of the attacks - leaving only the very sketchy summary in the main timeline article. And a fairly detailed continuous timeline is needed, whether in one or several articles - other articles on the September 11 attacks cover the aftermath thematically well but leave the overall chronology difficult to follow. While it is regrettable that this and most of the other timeline articles have the lax of referencing standards common in the early days of Wikipedia, this is improvable - I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that sources won't be available for most of the items in the article, even if they may be more difficult to trace than they would have been ten years ago. If, after any removals of items that can't be sourced after due effort, the detailed timeline articles are short enough, they can of course be merged either back into Timeline of the September 11 attacks or into fewer and possibly more rationally divided articles. PWilkinson (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per PWilkinson: offering a good way to explain the very important and notable events of 9/11 and its aftermath in an easily understood and navigable format, and as a break-out from Timeline of the September 11 attacks. Also because other media organisations have published timelines of September 2011 which indicate this is a notable topic.  Do the people wanting this deleted also propose to delete Timeline of World War II and other similar articles and sub-articles?  Or is there some guidance on which topics deserve a timeline and which don't? (Also note this isn't the place for your anti-US/anti-Bush arguments.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What a straw man. Of course not. Timeline of World War II covers a logical span of time (the entirety of an event). Just looking at the remainder of September 2001 after 9/11 is arbitrary, whether other people have done that or not. Do the effects just stop as of October 1? If Timeline of the September 11 attacks needs to be split, 2001 and beyond would be a more logical break point. I'll propose such a merger if this article is kept. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it a straw man? 9/11 may be a little less important in the totality of world history than World War II, but we're not talking about a timeline of the Backstreet Boys reunion, we're talking about perhaps the most important news event of the 21st century so far. Obviously the effects didn't stop at October 1, that's why there's another article Timeline for October following the September 11 attacks. Did you look at Timeline of World War II? Just like Timeline of the September 11 attacks it's divided into articles Timeline of World War II (1940), Timeline of World War II (1941), etc, at arbitrary but convenient points. And despite your belief that it only covers events in a specific time span, Timeline of World War II actually covers relevant events before and after the war. The reason proposed for deletion was that timelines are unnecessary: you accept that timelines for major events are entirely proper and that it's reasonable to divide timelines and you still say "delete" above? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as right now, there were plenty or minor events following the remainder of September '01. ApprenticeFan  work 13:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve as per above. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Arbitrary, mostly unsourced information. Much of the information could certainly be merged into an appropriate 9/11 article, if fully sourced. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Information is arbitrary and insufficiently sourced. May contain a significant amount of original research. As Carrite rightly points, there is no logical or objective endpoint to the data.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per PWilkinson. A timeline of the attacks is a reasonable and useful topic. This, along with the others, is one reasonable way to organize the articles. Tom Harrison Talk 02:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This falls under WP:PURPLIST: The list is a valuable information source. "This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically." The state of the current list is that editors do not appear to be guessing what may be added to the list, so the list's inclusion criteria appears to be appropriate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2012 (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.