Saudi role in September 11 attacks – Relist. The weight of numbers is on the overturn side of the spectrum, but not so much that I'm comfortable calling this a consensus to overturn just on the raw numbers. The thing that pushed me over the line was looking at
User:FreeatlastChitchat's comment and deciding it should be downweighted, not so much because he was the AfD nominator, but because his comment here is a rehash of arguments about the article, not an evaluation of whether the close reflected the AfD discussion (i.e. DRV is not AfD round two). Once I got past that, a consensus here to vacate the AfD close seemed more in focus.
Next, what to do about it? There's roughly equal call here for overturning to NC vs. relisting. I'm not a fan of DRV second-guessing AfD decisions, i.e. replacing the original decision with one of our own. I'd much rather send it back to AfD to let the broader community decide, and especially so in a case like this where the DRV discussion itself is not clear.
So, then I'm left with starting a new AfD or reopening the existing one? Here,
User:Hobit provided the critical observation. AfD is supposed to be (largely) about evaluating sources, and, for the most part, that didn't happen here. So, a
fresh AfD seems in order. – --
RoySmith(talk)13:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The matter is
discussed with the closing admin. I think there's no clear consensus for deletion of this article. There are some 'delete' opinions, but that does not make us ignore 'keep' ones which are well explained and supported. The article was well sourced and it was explained how the nominator's claims regarding the article didn't apply there. To my eyes, there's no consensus for deletion. I'm requesting another review. thanks. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
11:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'd like to note that Freeatlast is the AFD nominator. Although there are many many sources listed in the discussion, I don't know how he thinks
WP:GNG is not passed. He has apparently no idea of
WP:GNG, as he showed
here and in some other nominations.
WP:NOTNEWS is clearly just thrown and is irrelevant. Also, I previously
explained why
WP:CRYSTALBALL did not apply there. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
A few comments, there is nothing to stop an AFD nominator commenting here it is the quality of their argument which counts. Similarly they are allowed to have been wrong in the past (and indeed wrong in the future) attacking the nominators track record is pretty weak - again quality of argument. That you believe you explained previously why something didn't apply, have you entertained the idea that your argument wasn't persuasive rather than it being a fault in the discussion? Finally (and this is broader, I'm sure, than just your comment) the review process isn't to rehash the AFD, it's about if the process was followed correctly and if the rough consensus was interpreted correctly by the closing admin--
82.14.37.32 (
talk)
20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
As I see it, the key intervention in that debate was
this one in which Mhhossein unleashed a whole string of sources. Subsequent edits to the debate should have picked apart those sources and established which, if any, were reliable. Wikipedians have repeatedly found that neither the New York Post nor the Daily Mail are reliable sources for anything, so it was reasonable to dismiss some of the sources out of hand. But The Independent, CNN and The Daily Telegraph are solid sources and from that edit forwards, an arguable case was present in the debate that we should have an article. And after that case was made, a number of debate participants did !vote to keep at least some of the content in at least some form. Both TheTimesAreAChanging and Buckshot06 made contributions to the debate that were headlined "delete" but when you read what they wrote, they clearly intended "
smerge". There are a number of other contributions to the debate which consist of assertions that are unsupported by reasons or sources, and I would have given these less weight.
I think this is a difficult debate to analyse and although I differ from Sandstein, I don't particularly wish to find fault with him. On balance I'm minded to send it back for a relist, with a request that the AfD should examine the sources presented more closely. I personally do not think it's a good idea to have a bluelink called "Saudi role in September 11 attacks", and if we were at such an AfD I would be suggesting a rename/retitle followed by a smerge.—
S MarshallT/
C23:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Relist or Overturn to non-consensus I am not sure what my own opinion is about whether or not we should have this as a separate article, but there was no consensus to delete. There were plausible arguments on each side, and none of the arguments were such that they would over-ride the others. When there is no consensus, the closer does not get to decide what theythink the solution ought to be. In such a situation, they should instead participate in the discussion. DGG (
talk )
01:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I read this as a "delete" based on strength of argument. Several "keep" opinions do not address our inclusion criteria, but merely assert that the topic is important (TheJJJunk and Saff V), or do not make any argument (Axxxion). I have largely discounted these. The only substantial "keep" opinion that I think needs to be strongly taken into account is the one by Mhhossein, which names and discusses relevant sources, and to a limited degree the "per above" view by Caseeart. Now there are also several similarly weakly argued "delete" views, but unlike most "keep" opinions, most "delete" opinions indicate that they are based on the number and quality of sources available. I remain of the view that the consensus of the discussion is as described in the closure – as to myself, I have neither formed nor expressed an opinion of my own about the merits of the nomination. Sandstein 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Ick. I'm grateful to Sandstein for closing this--that's one of the hardest discussions to close I've ever seen. But Relist partly per S Marshall but also because it was a crappy discussion of something that is actually important for us to get right. Very few reasonable deletion arguments after sources were listed. The TOOSOON arguments really didn't touch on the sources in any way. But there were only two or three reasonable keep !votes. I think we are destined to have an article with a similar title at some point. I think AfD needs to figure out if the sources presented thus far are enough for an article. And I don't think that discussion happened at all.
Hobit (
talk)
23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Given the obvious problems with the article title (per the discussion there, here and common sense) I'd have no objection to having this article in draft space while we discuss it. That creates a bit of a problem as it makes the status quo "don't have the article", but I think having a blue link there without being _sure_ we want one seems important in this case.
Hobit (
talk)
09:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Overturn and Relist, clear lack of consensus, inclusion has some policy based reasons. Also someone please restore the page history and talk for DRV.
Valoemtalkcontrib02:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Overturn to non-consensus: Contrary to what
Sandstein said, my 'keep' opinion was based on Wikipedia inclusion criteria as I mentioned
GNG by saying: "it is a notable subject supported by many many reliable sources and Mhhossein presented some of them." I also rejected the 'too soon' allegation and the view that the article was based on just two senators' viewpoint, as I knew that some other analysts such as Porter and Bahgat had discussed the role of Saudi Arabia in the event. Also I believe that 'TheJJJunk's 'keep; opinion was based on the policies, when he asserted that we had to rely on the sources and not on our "personal feelings". So, I think that discussion had to close as 'no consensus', as there were really no consensus for deletion.
Saff V. (
talk)
05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I think some users including me showed how 'Too soon' is not applicable here and also we know that your alleged NPOV issues has nothing to do with AFD. Even if we find a better article to have it merged there, which I don't think to be a suitable choice, we'll soon have to split that. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Mhhossein, it is clear that you were not convinced, and the the rough consensus left you in a minority position. However, I looked at your sources and find them to be speculative. If the article were "Speculation on a Saudi role in September 11 attacks", then your sources would be
primary sources. There is clearly an important public/political discussion at hand, but covering it is a matter of
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. The article so titles is inherently WP:NPOV violating. It takes time for political commentary to become worthy of encylopedic; the independent reliable and reputable
secondary sources are yet to be written. Currently, every author is part of the story. There is a way forward, and that way involves consensus building at
Talk:Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse(see additional comment below from 12 May 2016 for optional !vote). I agree with SmokeyJoe. The article was largely based on the assumption that some unpublished and classified pages of a 9/11 report speak about Saudi Arabia's role. Since the pages are unpublished, this information is not yet verifiable and for now thus violates our
WP:V core content policy. The only thing we have in the provided sources is speculation. IMO a separate article founded on such speculative accusations should not exist (
WP:CRYSTALBALL), but indeed may be mentioned in e.g.
Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Saudi_Arabia. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
05:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
But he believes that "there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers."[1] --
Mhhossein (
talk)
05:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
"Beliefs of existence of evidence" by a commissioner responsible for investigating the case covered by various reliable sources is for sure what can make an encyclopedia.
Mhhossein (
talk)
11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
According this even
fresher source, "...John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages."SmokeyJoe: Bring your 'too soon' to the AFD page after it's relisted. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
comment @
Mhhossein you seem to be going about all over the place replying to every single comment. My personal advise is to just let it go for a while, the deletion is not a personal affront to you, just basic housekeeping.
FreeatlastChitchat (
talk)
12:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Saudi role in September 11 attacks – Relist. The weight of numbers is on the overturn side of the spectrum, but not so much that I'm comfortable calling this a consensus to overturn just on the raw numbers. The thing that pushed me over the line was looking at
User:FreeatlastChitchat's comment and deciding it should be downweighted, not so much because he was the AfD nominator, but because his comment here is a rehash of arguments about the article, not an evaluation of whether the close reflected the AfD discussion (i.e. DRV is not AfD round two). Once I got past that, a consensus here to vacate the AfD close seemed more in focus.
Next, what to do about it? There's roughly equal call here for overturning to NC vs. relisting. I'm not a fan of DRV second-guessing AfD decisions, i.e. replacing the original decision with one of our own. I'd much rather send it back to AfD to let the broader community decide, and especially so in a case like this where the DRV discussion itself is not clear.
So, then I'm left with starting a new AfD or reopening the existing one? Here,
User:Hobit provided the critical observation. AfD is supposed to be (largely) about evaluating sources, and, for the most part, that didn't happen here. So, a
fresh AfD seems in order. – --
RoySmith(talk)13:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The matter is
discussed with the closing admin. I think there's no clear consensus for deletion of this article. There are some 'delete' opinions, but that does not make us ignore 'keep' ones which are well explained and supported. The article was well sourced and it was explained how the nominator's claims regarding the article didn't apply there. To my eyes, there's no consensus for deletion. I'm requesting another review. thanks. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
11:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'd like to note that Freeatlast is the AFD nominator. Although there are many many sources listed in the discussion, I don't know how he thinks
WP:GNG is not passed. He has apparently no idea of
WP:GNG, as he showed
here and in some other nominations.
WP:NOTNEWS is clearly just thrown and is irrelevant. Also, I previously
explained why
WP:CRYSTALBALL did not apply there. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
A few comments, there is nothing to stop an AFD nominator commenting here it is the quality of their argument which counts. Similarly they are allowed to have been wrong in the past (and indeed wrong in the future) attacking the nominators track record is pretty weak - again quality of argument. That you believe you explained previously why something didn't apply, have you entertained the idea that your argument wasn't persuasive rather than it being a fault in the discussion? Finally (and this is broader, I'm sure, than just your comment) the review process isn't to rehash the AFD, it's about if the process was followed correctly and if the rough consensus was interpreted correctly by the closing admin--
82.14.37.32 (
talk)
20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
As I see it, the key intervention in that debate was
this one in which Mhhossein unleashed a whole string of sources. Subsequent edits to the debate should have picked apart those sources and established which, if any, were reliable. Wikipedians have repeatedly found that neither the New York Post nor the Daily Mail are reliable sources for anything, so it was reasonable to dismiss some of the sources out of hand. But The Independent, CNN and The Daily Telegraph are solid sources and from that edit forwards, an arguable case was present in the debate that we should have an article. And after that case was made, a number of debate participants did !vote to keep at least some of the content in at least some form. Both TheTimesAreAChanging and Buckshot06 made contributions to the debate that were headlined "delete" but when you read what they wrote, they clearly intended "
smerge". There are a number of other contributions to the debate which consist of assertions that are unsupported by reasons or sources, and I would have given these less weight.
I think this is a difficult debate to analyse and although I differ from Sandstein, I don't particularly wish to find fault with him. On balance I'm minded to send it back for a relist, with a request that the AfD should examine the sources presented more closely. I personally do not think it's a good idea to have a bluelink called "Saudi role in September 11 attacks", and if we were at such an AfD I would be suggesting a rename/retitle followed by a smerge.—
S MarshallT/
C23:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Relist or Overturn to non-consensus I am not sure what my own opinion is about whether or not we should have this as a separate article, but there was no consensus to delete. There were plausible arguments on each side, and none of the arguments were such that they would over-ride the others. When there is no consensus, the closer does not get to decide what theythink the solution ought to be. In such a situation, they should instead participate in the discussion. DGG (
talk )
01:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I read this as a "delete" based on strength of argument. Several "keep" opinions do not address our inclusion criteria, but merely assert that the topic is important (TheJJJunk and Saff V), or do not make any argument (Axxxion). I have largely discounted these. The only substantial "keep" opinion that I think needs to be strongly taken into account is the one by Mhhossein, which names and discusses relevant sources, and to a limited degree the "per above" view by Caseeart. Now there are also several similarly weakly argued "delete" views, but unlike most "keep" opinions, most "delete" opinions indicate that they are based on the number and quality of sources available. I remain of the view that the consensus of the discussion is as described in the closure – as to myself, I have neither formed nor expressed an opinion of my own about the merits of the nomination. Sandstein 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Ick. I'm grateful to Sandstein for closing this--that's one of the hardest discussions to close I've ever seen. But Relist partly per S Marshall but also because it was a crappy discussion of something that is actually important for us to get right. Very few reasonable deletion arguments after sources were listed. The TOOSOON arguments really didn't touch on the sources in any way. But there were only two or three reasonable keep !votes. I think we are destined to have an article with a similar title at some point. I think AfD needs to figure out if the sources presented thus far are enough for an article. And I don't think that discussion happened at all.
Hobit (
talk)
23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Given the obvious problems with the article title (per the discussion there, here and common sense) I'd have no objection to having this article in draft space while we discuss it. That creates a bit of a problem as it makes the status quo "don't have the article", but I think having a blue link there without being _sure_ we want one seems important in this case.
Hobit (
talk)
09:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Overturn and Relist, clear lack of consensus, inclusion has some policy based reasons. Also someone please restore the page history and talk for DRV.
Valoemtalkcontrib02:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Overturn to non-consensus: Contrary to what
Sandstein said, my 'keep' opinion was based on Wikipedia inclusion criteria as I mentioned
GNG by saying: "it is a notable subject supported by many many reliable sources and Mhhossein presented some of them." I also rejected the 'too soon' allegation and the view that the article was based on just two senators' viewpoint, as I knew that some other analysts such as Porter and Bahgat had discussed the role of Saudi Arabia in the event. Also I believe that 'TheJJJunk's 'keep; opinion was based on the policies, when he asserted that we had to rely on the sources and not on our "personal feelings". So, I think that discussion had to close as 'no consensus', as there were really no consensus for deletion.
Saff V. (
talk)
05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I think some users including me showed how 'Too soon' is not applicable here and also we know that your alleged NPOV issues has nothing to do with AFD. Even if we find a better article to have it merged there, which I don't think to be a suitable choice, we'll soon have to split that. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Mhhossein, it is clear that you were not convinced, and the the rough consensus left you in a minority position. However, I looked at your sources and find them to be speculative. If the article were "Speculation on a Saudi role in September 11 attacks", then your sources would be
primary sources. There is clearly an important public/political discussion at hand, but covering it is a matter of
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. The article so titles is inherently WP:NPOV violating. It takes time for political commentary to become worthy of encylopedic; the independent reliable and reputable
secondary sources are yet to be written. Currently, every author is part of the story. There is a way forward, and that way involves consensus building at
Talk:Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse(see additional comment below from 12 May 2016 for optional !vote). I agree with SmokeyJoe. The article was largely based on the assumption that some unpublished and classified pages of a 9/11 report speak about Saudi Arabia's role. Since the pages are unpublished, this information is not yet verifiable and for now thus violates our
WP:V core content policy. The only thing we have in the provided sources is speculation. IMO a separate article founded on such speculative accusations should not exist (
WP:CRYSTALBALL), but indeed may be mentioned in e.g.
Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Saudi_Arabia. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
05:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
But he believes that "there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers."[1] --
Mhhossein (
talk)
05:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
"Beliefs of existence of evidence" by a commissioner responsible for investigating the case covered by various reliable sources is for sure what can make an encyclopedia.
Mhhossein (
talk)
11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
According this even
fresher source, "...John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages."SmokeyJoe: Bring your 'too soon' to the AFD page after it's relisted. --
Mhhossein (
talk)
11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
comment @
Mhhossein you seem to be going about all over the place replying to every single comment. My personal advise is to just let it go for a while, the deletion is not a personal affront to you, just basic housekeeping.
FreeatlastChitchat (
talk)
12:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.