Deletion of Timeline for September following the September 11 attacks

Comment: This falls under : The list is a valuable information source. "This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically." The state of the current list is that editors do not appear to be guessing what may be added to the list, so the list's inclusion criteria appears to be appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PURPLIST)

Comment: Information is arbitrary and insufficiently sourced. May contain a significant amount of |original research. As Carrite rightly points, there is no logical or objective endpoint to the data
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: The nominator seems to have missed out a bit of  which, while not necessary (or even appropriate) in most deletion discussions, should have been regarded as vital here - checking the history of the article and how it is supposed to fit in with the other articles on the September 11 attacks. And the ''Delete'' !voters so far seem to have followed suit. This article is part of a restructuring of Timeline of the September 11 attacks carried out in early 2003, leaving a short summary there and splitting the detailed timeline, originally assembled in late 2001, into a sequence of articles, in which this one is immediately preceded by Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks|a timeline of the day of the attacks and succeeded by timelines for Timeline for October following the September 11 attacks|October and Timeline beyond October following the September 11 attacks|later. Deleting this article without touching the others would create a gap in the detailed timeline for one of the most important periods - the immediate aftermath of the attacks - leaving only the very sketchy summary in the main timeline article. And a fairly detailed continuous timeline is needed, whether in one or several articles - other articles on the September 11 attacks cover the aftermath thematically well but leave the overall chronology difficult to follow. While it is regrettable that this and most of the other timeline articles have the lax of referencing standards common in the early days of Wikipedia, this is improvable - I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that sources won't be available for most of the items in the article, even if they may be more difficult to trace than they would have been ten years ago. If, after any removals of items that can't be sourced after due effort, the detailed timeline articles are short enough, they can of course be merged either back into Timeline of the September 11 attacks or into fewer and possibly more rationally divided articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)