Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear 9/11

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. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear 9/11

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

Delete. non-notable neologism that has no real currency in the literature to speak of; any relevant content should be merged to nuclear terrorism. I posted a note almost a year ago asking if there were any objections to deletion and so far nobody has responded so I figured the time was ripe for AfD. csloat (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like it could have been a WP:PROD candidate. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion of a "Nuclear 9/11" in the literature, see [1] The article was expanded in May and June 2009, and more references added to establish notability. Johnfos (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "the literature" I meant scholarly literature discussing terrorism, not sensational headlines. It appears in google because it makes a good headline, not because there is anything substantive distinguishing it from what is already to be covered in nuclear terrorism. If we're going to keep, we should make it an article about the neologism, rather than treating it as an actual concept. And your claim about recent edits -- This diff includes every change from 2009 back to January; the only new sources added say nothing about "nuclear 9/11". And, as pointed out on the talk page, a lot of this is based on a bizarre fringe conspiracy theory of Paul L. Williams that has been rejected as a hoax by his own publisher. csloat (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nevah forget! Article could do with considerable improvement though. Artw (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article concerns a neologism for a set of hypothetical events that are based entirely on speculation (largely by individuals who have no background in defense or counter-terrorism). i can think of a number of reasons why this sort of article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia but do not wish to articulate them all; to give one there is the WP:NEO guideline. Solid State Survivor (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with nuclear terrorism. ^TheWeak_Willed 12:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable term - see refs currently provided in the article.Biophys (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does this phrase refer to a sufficiently specific type of event, distinct from nuclear terrorism? I get the feeling it's a continuously spontaneously recreated attention-getting phrase, not a different type of thing--hence a neologism. JJL (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject, based on sensationalist media fear mongering and non-academic speculation with little factual basis. LokiiT (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an other term for nuclear terrorism. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post has an article titled that, and other news sources exist as well. The subject is notable, and the name is what the news media uses for it. Dream Focus 09:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/(redirect to Nuclear terrorism). So ridiculously speculative, I can't believe some people actually voted to keep it. From WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...] Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. I'm also pretty sure WP:RS doesn't cover sensationalist article headlines. — Rankiri (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP has many, many, notable articles relating to scenarios, forecasting and futurology. These are not mere speculation or crystal ball gazing. Johnfos (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists? — Rankiri (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A neologism for nuclear terrorism, totally redundant to it. Fences&Windows 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to nuclear terrorism? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:35, 12 August 2009 (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.