Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11


 * 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 speedy delete as a hastening of the inevitable, and because this article is more pollution than information Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11
Original research.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkg eu (talk &bull; contribs) .  is the article's author.
 * Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV and original research.  Snurks T C 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, complete bollocks. Royal Blue  T/C 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. Mak emi 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless author comes up with good sources for this (re: Talk page), which seems doubtful. -- Mithent 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV essay. Zarquon 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Where do I begin. (1) It begins with first person pronoun. (2)The definition of POV. (3) Is there any rule about facts on Wikipedia? Because if there is, the article is more of an argument, barely theory, than a factual account. -- Jay  (Reply)  01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete O.R. unless the author is a high-ranking member of Al-Qaeda Ruby 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Jay -- light darkness (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Besides, I have a theory about this that's far better than this one. I'm sure a lot of people do. Grandmasterka 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. --Jelligraze 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and send to BJAODN as "One of the worst articles EVER." Batman2005 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the first words of the article say, "I am sorry"... but this is all the problems already mentioned above. --Kinu 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Many problems with this.  --Lockley 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per original research. Basicially a very badly written editorial.-Jersey Devil 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Cnwb 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR.Blnguyen 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, Wikipedia is not a blog, original research etc. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as orignial research. --Ter e nce Ong 05:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Sbohra 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and atrociously-written research at that, too. Article also inherently POV, so WP:NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)   07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research Compu  te  r  Jo  e  08:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, personal theory. Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG SPEEDY DELETE Wikipedia is not a soap box. Neutral POV. No original research. Bobby1011 14:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. Avi 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and maybe there should be a speed for 20+ deletes from existing editors vs no keeps (other than the author).--Isotope23 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as bollocks.  You know, the Battle of Plattsburgh also took place on 11 September, why can't that be what was being referenced?  Ergot 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Delete. This fails WP:NOR so clearly that it seems to actually want to. WP:NOT a soapbox. There are other wikis with more relaxed rules, but we are an encyclopedia, not a free weblog service. Or you could always spare some dosh and get a real, personal webpage. J I P  | Talk 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete this one please we are really not a soapbox Yuckfoo 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleting it now since even Yuckfoo, who can find the nugget of gold in the cruddiest rock, can apparently find nothing to redeem it. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 19:51, 15 February 2006 (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.