Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S11

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)

[edit] S11

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)

• Strong keep. Rhetoric aside, the protests themselves were massively notable. They dominated the news for weeks, caused legal action that was ongoing for years, and are still fairly widely remembered today as the peak of the Australian anti-globalisation movement. The conspiracy theory (that peaceful Australian anti-globalisation protesters mysteriously had something to do with Middle Eastern religious terrorists because incidents happened on the same day a year later) is complete crankery which I very much doubt a reputable source could be found for (the original source was an anonymous Slashdot post, of all things), and well deserves to be removed from the article. Ambi 11:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• 209k Google hits = keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As mentioned by Ambi, this protest was notable for many things. For starters, it was the biggest anti-globalisation rally in Australia, and the "S11" protests are well known here. It is unfortunate that the article has been hijacked by the 2000-9-11<->2001-9-11 conspiracy theories, but this is a candidate for cleaning up, not deletion. - Synapse 11:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What Ambi said. pfctdayelise 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was very notable in Melbourne before that day in 2001. --Canley 13:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 20:54Z
• Keep. Rhobite 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• Keep. I remember that day in 1999/2000 all too well. We couldn't go and see Bill Gates because of it. It really left a mark where globalisation is/was concerned. --EuropracBHIT 12:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

• Keep. Protests were notable. Article should be cleaned up. Agnte 07:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Remove the wikilinks from every single date. Stifle 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Keep per Ambi. Sarah Ewart 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This vote seems to be just an attempt at Americanisation bias. Not everything that happens in America makes everything that happens outside America non-notable. That is hugely biased. Xtra 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Zordrac is an Aussie, and User:Striver wouldn't exactly be part of a conspiracy for American hegemony. Assume good faith Andjam 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that's what it looked like when I read the VFD. Xtra 14:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This protest was all over the Australian media as it was happening. Amongst the Left in Melbourne, it was certainly a watershed event. Cnwb 05:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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.