Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi role in September 11 attacks
The reasons listed for the deletion have already been rebutted by the article's creator as inapplicable to the article in question. There is therefore no substantial evidence that the article should deleted in the first place. IMHO, the real reason for this article being brought up for deletion is because some editors have personal "feelings" about the content in the article. They disagree with the content because it goes against the "narrative" that they themselves believe about 9/11. Regardless of any reliable sources to the contrary, these people will always revert to their narrow personal beliefs and will continuously seek to hide from any reliable evidence that is provided. Because WP is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, we must remember that our own personal beliefs about a subject are irrelevant. We '''must''' refer only to the reliable sources that we have. Likewise, we cannot "censor" information (which I have seen done on the 9/11 attacks article) from reliable sources simply because it contradicts information from a previous source. This brings to mind the '''many''' current events articles such as the Boston Bombings, the San Bernardino bombings, the Paris Attacks, etc., on which WP editors did not at all hesitate to make rapid edits shortly after the event occurred, regardless of whether or not the information in the sources proved to be accurate. As new information came out, old, incorrect information and their sources were removed and replaced by new information and sources. Imagine if, in these instances, editors had refused to update the information in these articles with new information and sources simply because the new information contradicted the old information that was currently there. We would never make any intellectual progress, the encyclopedia would become outdated and inaccurate, and we would again be stuck with a "narrative" that may or may not be the truth (according to secondary sources; we cannot independently verify information ourselves, ). This ties back to the "conspiracy theory" argument, that "this is just a conspiracy theory". However, similar to above, whether or not this truly is just a "conspiracy theory" is irrelevant for the purposes of the encyclopedia. If reliable secondary sources provide information claimed to be factual, then to us, this information is '''necessarily''' factual until proven otherwise (again, be careful of ). Even if contradicting sources exist, I strongly believe that it is worthwhile to keep ''both'' sets of information (in some form or another), even if only for a historical reference to the contradiction itself
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)