Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S11

[edit]

I created this page from a request from User:Striver in relation to the conspiracy theory in relation to 9/11. However, some segments of the Wikipedia community have gone to lengths to try to remove that aspect from the page. The protests themselves were seriously non-notable, and without the link they don't warrant their own entry. The amount of abusive behaviour from editors surrounding this is just ridiculous and I am sick of it, so this article needs to go. I never wanted to make the article in the first place, so can we just say goodbye to it, and perhaps just put in a redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks like it was before? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Can I post a still of myself being interviewed from the Melbourne Rising film? That's probably the only way I'll ever make it into Wikipedia. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll just say that I regret making this article. I told Shriver I didn't want to do it, but he insisted, and started a stub, so I did it. As I told him, there's no way that they could be responsible for 9/11. But they were suspects. The point I was trying to make with him was that Al Qaeda weren't responsible, not that s11 was. But the issue is that its important to include all suspects, however silly they may be. I for one think that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and I think its pretty bleeding obvious that he was. But that's my opinion. I have never thought that s11 were responsible. Several thousand other people did though. And that is probably the most notable aspect of them. NOT including that element when discussing them is NEGLIGENT and IRRESPONSIBLE. That is the issue. But whether they deserve their own post for the protests is highly debatable. Protests + Conspiracy theory = yes. Protests alone = probably not. You have to consider this. If you are going to disregard a conspiracy theory which at minimum is far more likely than the ludicruous Jewish theory then you have to note that this is very much non-notable. How many other Anti-Globalisation protests have their own articles? Only 1 other. This one wasn't particularly notable. Only notable for the date that it was performed in, 1 year to the day before the 9/11 attacks. And besides which, I would like to ask for the people who engaged in personal attacks, either in edit summaries, or abusive messages to my talk page, to apologise. I never once claimed ownership of the article, it was not my idea to make it, and I do not deserve such abuse. I for one never thought it was significantly notable for its own article. A small section in 9/11 conspiracy theories is enough. And maybe another small section in the anti-globalisation movement. That's been done. No more is needed. I am very much reluctant in this, especially as it is a somewhat farcical conspiracy theory. Yes, there was cover up, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. And the CIA very much did cover up 9/11 issues, including this, of which there is evidence. But that doesn't mean that these guys are responsible. Whilst they had motive to attack the World Trade Centre, they didn't have motive to attack the Pentagon. Case closed right there. And hence, article deleted right there. To have this used as a rationale for labelling me as a "conspiracy theorist" when I have not contributed to any other conspiracy theory article is worse than ludicruous. It is downright irresponsible. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's calling you a conspiracy theorist for creating this article, Zordrac. It's just that the conspiracy theory doesn't really come into things - it's such a minority view that there doesn't appear to be any reputable sources for it (and thus can't go in the article), and you're obviously in the minority about the significance of the demonstrations. No one knows about the conspiracy theory, but ask most Australians if they remember the S11 demonstrations, and you'll very probably get a positive answer. Ambi 12:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd prefer protests be merged with what was being protested against, but such a proposal may lack support. I'd support the mention of S11 sometimes being used to describe the attacks. googling S11 "terrorist attack" mentions wsws.org using S11 as shorthand for the attacks, for example. I independently noticed the calendar coincidence, but I thought western anti-capitalist activists lacked the capability to carry out the attacks. Andjam 03:17, 14 January 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S11&oldid=1080260174"