Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi role in September 11 attacks (2nd nomination)

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 keep. and rename to "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks" (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi role in September 11 attacks

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Saudi role in September 11 attacks
• Articles for deletion/Saudi role in September 11 attacks (2nd nomination)

Saudi role in September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted in a previous AfD. That AfD close was brought to review. The outcome of that review was to relist. My action here is purely administrative; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 14:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I've provided much of my arguments in the previous AFD (please see the list of sources I provided there). Besides I'd like to add these fresh sources:

1. Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says by the guardian.
2. Declassified documents detail 9/11 commission's inquiry into Saudi Arabia by the guardian.
3. Saudi Ties to Sept. 11 Attacks by CGS monitor.
4. 'Saudi Arabian government officials supported September 11 hijackers,' former 9/11 Commission member claims by the independent.

Per plenty of sources which support the topic I think we should have such an article. This is how I think about it. --Mhhossein (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's a horribly bad idea to have a bluelink with this title. If kept at AfD, it should be renamed to something that doesn't take sides, such as "Alleged Saudi role in 9/11".—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sourcing looks strong, and this is absolutely a notable controversy. It is difficult to call it "speculative" when there is so much coverage including statements from those who have actually seen the report. Here are further sources about the debate over the "28 pages" alone:

• 28 Pages In Sept. 11 Report Should Be Declassified, Ex-Sen. Graham Says (NPR)
• THE SAUDI ROLE IN SEPT. 11 AND THE HIDDEN 9/11 REPORT PAGES (Newsweek)
• CIA director: '28 pages' contain inaccurate information (The Hill)
• Politico

However, I also propose a move to "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks." GAB^Hello! 15:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename Looking at the sources listed above, I think we have plenty for an article. I'd call this a reasonable spinout of Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Saudi_Arabia rather than a POV fork. That said, as was mentioned at the DRV and by two others above, I'd prefer a different name. I'd prefer "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks" to be somewhat consistent with the parent article. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Tshuva (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A fresh source. Mhhossein (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I would rename to something like Saudi September 11 attacks involvement controversy DanielJCooper (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 22:11, 21 May 2016 (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.