Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remember the Annex! The 9/11 Raid on Benghazi

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 per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Annex! The 9/11 Raid on Benghazi

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

I wish there was a CSD tag for opinionated articles. If there is, I'd like to know. AutomaticStrikeout 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is A10 stretchy enough to cover it? Frankly, it looks like a copyvio (look at that signature at the bottom, just like it would appear in a magazine), although if so I can't find where it was published originally. Morwen - Talk 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if A10 would be helpful here or not. As you can see below, I started an RfC that would solve the problem much more completely. AutomaticStrikeout 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish there was a CSD for "this is not your blog" §FreeRangeFrog 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. In fact, I have started an RfC regarding that. AutomaticStrikeout 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added my 2 cents, but they tend to be very... special about what is CSD. Anyway, it's worth a try. §FreeRangeFrog 22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, unreferenced, essay, political diatribe. Edison (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison GabrielF (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is elaboration even necessary? WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, WP:N for that matter. Go Phightins! 23:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison and so may WP: policies mentioned above I'm not going to relink them again. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many violations in an article and not noteworthy as a topic. Buster40004 Talk 04:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's snowing in November. Wikipedia is not a blog for personal essays.--xanchester (t) 09:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed everything that was not a personal opinion or unsourced material about a living person or unrelated to the proposed title or unsourced at all. I cannot find the copyright violation, but nothing in Wikipedia requires us to allow personal blogs in article space. The remaining article is an unsourced nothing. -Fjozk (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rolled back your edit because it would be WP:SYNTH anyway; let the article stand in the form it was nominated for AfD. This isn't something that can be salvaged by adding references or asserting notability. §FreeRangeFrog 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be synth, my edit? The remaining text was just the first line of the article. There is no requirement anywhere on Wikipedia to allow blog posts to stand in article space. Please revert your edit, there is no reason to allow this person to post their blog on Wikipedia. You want his blog, move it to your user space. -Fjozk (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment um, I'm not contesting the fact that the article should be deleted, I'm saying that your edit is pointless and disruptive to the AfD. What possible advantage would the closing admin gain from you reducing that pile of nonsense to three words? §FreeRangeFrog 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Um, you're saying the closing admin can only judge long articles, can't read histories, can't see that the reduction is worthless, that crap must be maintained on Wikipedia to decide whether it can be deleted en masse, what? There is also unsourced material about living people in there, in addition to the painfully badly written blog-shit. So, what exactly are you saying is your reason for restoring unsourced biographical material about living people, and unsource blog material and an opinion piece to main space, so that we can talk about it here? Really? -Fjozk (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2012 (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.