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. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit]

This article contains a lot of POV, unsourced nonsense. Furthermore, many of the bullet points have little to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. The page is in need of some serious editing after which I do not believe the article will have enough information to stand alone. For these reasons, I have nominated the article for deletion. Pablothegreat85 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks or Al-Quida. The problem with these background information is that they are quite ambigious. If we have to strip out all the assumptions, then these backgrounds would actually be Al-Quida's info. George Leung 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is speculative original research. --Ezeu 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As-is the article is an unsourced mess. However, it could be cleaned up by adding proper sources and weeding out irrelevant info. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Never mind, looking it over again, September 11, 2001 attacks#Motive already covers the motives of the attackers in a more accurate and succinct fashion. Delete. — Krimpet (talk/review) 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvagable POV mess. I don't see how it can be cleaned up now...maybe later it can be recreated, but this is unencyclopedic, has almost no sources, makes some spurious connections and not in keeping with WP:ATT.--MONGO 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Huge subjective element in working out which incidents are relevant background and which are not. Where reliable sources have claimed event X to be a factor, that would be worth mentioning in the article about the attacks. But this is simply the wrong way to present this information- the article is composed predominantly of OR and synthesis. WjBscribe 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia has a rule against an article such as this, informally called "connecting the dots". It amounts to synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is codified at WP:SYNT. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MONGO, Morton_devonshire, ~~Tom Harrison~~Strike as Tom has not voted. and NuclearUmpf. background history of the Sept 11 attacks is contained in other articles such as Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. The unsourced opening paragraph seems to conclude that the background of the attack is "US foreign policy with regard to predominantly Muslim countries and Israel in the latter part of the Cold War, the growth of radical Islamism, and prior terrorist attacks on the United States" and as such is original research. This narrow conclusion of the causes then becomes a POV fork to be critical of these presumptuous, unsourced "background" events. --Tbeatty 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. WP:OR, fails WP:RS. --Folantin 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and WP:OR synthesis. FiggyBee 09:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia rules are not suitable for articles like this, where deciding what to include controls the message the article delivers (by showing readers a bunch of dots they can connect, per Morton). Unless we create new (article-specific?) rules, editors have to make decisions about what to mention or omit based on their own POV. No wonder the result is less than satisfactory. This is not a suitable topic for an article in any encyclopedia, and is an invitation to POV-warring in this encyclopedia. CWC(talk) 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently pov essay Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I'm undecided on this. Chapters 2-8 of the 9/11 commission report deal with "background' history, as well as some material that can go in the "planning" article. The 9/11 commission report also has extensive footnotes, which lead one to more good, reliable sources. Of course, such an article could be attractive to POV pushers, but at the same time if it can be made to work, with good sources and comply with policies, then it might be useful. I suggest maybe stubbing the article and even moving to userspace, until time if/when if can be brought up to acceptable quality and compliance with policies. I'm of the opinion that it's better we try making something acceptable out of this, so people have something neutral to look at when they search "9/11 + background" on google, as opposed to some of the other material that turns up in searches. As the article stands now, though it's no better than the other things that turn up in a google search. That's why I suggest stubbing it, and if after some effort it can't be made to work then delete it. --Aude (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything of use in this article has been merged into the main article. Nothing in the subarticle of any use. --Aude (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as largely unsourced and WP:OR. I doubt there is anything here worth merging, as this touches on one of the most well-covered subjects on the encyclopedia. Arkyan 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Wow, I don’t know which slams this article worse, this AfD or the article’s talk page. Yep, not worth the time to even attempt to clean this mess up. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We can merge it into September 11, 2001 attacks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Aude above. All of the useful information from this article has been merged already. This article has no value. Pablothegreat85 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR synthesis using selected "references" to put together a POV narrative. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV pushing, and little viable content. Does not accurately assess topic--Sefringle 04:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.