Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (third nomination)

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 and merge to 9/11 Truth Movement, per consensus. - Banyan Tree 02:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (third nomination)

The subject of the article is not notable enough to have its own article. The article should be deleted, and any parts of it worth keeping should be merged into the 9/11 Truth Movement article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- delete and merge into 9/11 Truth Movement, meetings subsection[1]. This gathering is not notable enough by itself to have a separate page. There's a place for it at the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium here[2]. I also question that we need 7 Alex Jones forks on Wikipedia, of which this is one. See Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, TerrorStorm, and Information Clearing House. MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that this "symposium" is not notable enough for its own article, nor are there really enough (if any) reliable sources available to support the article. --Aude (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "Media Coverage" section is clearly designed to demonstrate notability, but when you actually look at the references, it is clear that this claim is exaggerated. The Washington Post is a few paragraphs in a larger "Nation in Brief" piece, with the exception of a Turkish article the other references are all reprints of the SAME reuters piece. [3] [4][5] - the original Reuters links are no longer live. GabrielF 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, mergemergemer ...uh... Delete and merge per all of the above. CWC 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wasn't notable when it was written and even less so now with the passage of time.--MONGO 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom--Dcooper 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated by nominator.--Jersey Devil 20:41, 8 May 2007 (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.