Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11, 2001 attack opportunists

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. Majorly (hot!) 16:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attack opportunists

Nominating this for User:Steve Dufour because he was having trouble with it. Article is POV, according to Steve Dufour. I am voting Delete mcr616 _Speak! 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've worked extensively on our 9/11 articles, helping to maintain and improve them. I don't care to work on this one, don't think it's really encyclopedic and could be made consistent with Wikipedia policies such as NPOV. --Aude (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the nominator. Thanks very much to mcr616 who responded to my request for help -- what a great community we have! Anyway my main problem with the article is the label "opportunist". People who sell coffee mugs which say "Let's Roll" get the label. However people who sell American flags, and made millions because of 9/11, do not. For that matter the Red Cross and the Salvation Army also made many millions in donations because of 9/11, yet they are not called "opportunists" in the article. How can we decide who is called an "opportunist" and who not? I think the general topic is worth covering, maybe under a title such as "The economic impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks" if there is not such an article already. Steve Dufour 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has POV issues and very few sources.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete reluctant to delete something that could be sourced... but eh a lot of this is speculation ("assuming that the two attacks are not linked, it follows that the anthrax attack was at least in part opportunistic"). I think that perhaps some of this (price gouging, the scientologist thing) should be mentioned in 9/11 articles, but there are NPOV issues all over the place with this article's name, implications, lack of sources... but some of this could go in Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. --W.marsh 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPOV. Mystache 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have POV issues with some of the part (particularly the anthrax section), but on the whole I see no reason why this aspect of the events should not be included. The Aftermath ... article mentioned is itself in need of cleaning, and I wouldn't suggest merging in any additional content there. DGG 05:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not saying the information is not interesting and maybe even important. It is just that the label "opportunists" can not help being POV and there is no standard for who is one and who is not. A couple of other points: I am sure the anthrax attacks took a long time to prepare, regardless if by a "lone gunman" or by a complex conspiracy as the article implies. I don't think they were an example of 9/11 "opportunism". And Scientology, although it made some mistakes of judgement, is probably not any more or less "opportunistic" in its actions than many other religious groups that got involved but are not mentioned in the article. (BTW I happened across this article because it links to Tom Cruise.) Steve Dufour 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to satisfy notability criteria, but must be better sourced. There are some POV problems, but I think this article should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change title and Merge If the problem is the POV nature of the word "opportunist", then consider changing the title. For example, an article titled Response to the September 11, 2001 attacks could have this content inside it without using the POV term "opportunist". The content is encyclopedic; the POV of branding the actions as "opportunistic" is unencyclopedic. --Richard 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Steve Dufour 14:28, 19 April 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.