The result was keep, as many (but not all) of the references provided in the external links section are sufficient to establish the notability of this subject per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, the existence of many acceptable references related to this subject specifically implies that it would be possible to write an article on this subject without recourse to original research. Article content problems, such as asserted presence of original research and/or non-notable material, as well as insufficient content utilizing the sources provided, are to be resolved editorially, not through the deletion of the entire article. John254 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This article needs to go. I don't see this as a good article for an encyclopedia. It is extremely lengthy, and some of the items are, to put it mildly, mundane. The attacks will be in the media for many years. What are we going to do? Add every single one of them? Where does it stop? imagine what the page will look like in 2015??? It is ridiculous. This article is an example of indiscriminate information getting an article. Fighting for Justice 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Confused There is a debate over there too. In any case, merge then delete per ALLSTAR. All unreferenced material should go. -- Kl4m T C 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Discussion from the other location follows.
The result was keep, as many (but not all) of the references provided in the external links section are sufficient to establish the notability of this subject per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, the existence of many acceptable references related to this subject specifically implies that it would be possible to write an article on this subject without recourse to original research. Article content problems, such as asserted presence of original research and/or non-notable material, as well as insufficient content utilizing the sources provided, are to be resolved editorially, not through the deletion of the entire article. John254 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This article needs to go. I don't see this as a good article for an encyclopedia. It is extremely lengthy, and some of the items are, to put it mildly, mundane. The attacks will be in the media for many years. What are we going to do? Add every single one of them? Where does it stop? imagine what the page will look like in 2015??? It is ridiculous. This article is an example of indiscriminate information getting an article. Fighting for Justice 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Confused There is a debate over there too. In any case, merge then delete per ALLSTAR. All unreferenced material should go. -- Kl4m T C 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Discussion from the other location follows.