510:. Speculation by individual editors has no place in wp. In contrast, speculation reported robustly in RSs throughout the world is "verifiable", and is certainly appropriate fodder for a wp article. This is even more the case where those who are speculating include notable people and "experts". Speculation stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.--
361:, for now. Events are still in motion regarding the death of bin Laden, and this is a big piece of the puzzle. President Obama's remarks essentially validating this theory are worth mention, as well. If we have a deflated balloon when the dust settles, we can merge or delete as appropriate - but, for now, we have the sources and the depth of coverage to justify the article.
653:
Any attempt to delete this article would be a serious breach of
Knowledge (XXG)'s self-proposed guidelines in order to satisfy a minority opinion regarding political/cultural sensitivities that have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not said article is educational, relevant and/or useful to the world's interested internet users. Thanks.
633:. An article's subject is not grounds for deletion, only its contents. It is well sourced, no matter how silly it is. If you have issues with the article, such as a lack of sources, POV issues, etc. bring those up on the page, or at least mention them in the AFD. There is no legitimate reason given to delete this article. —
187:
This article is about, in essence, a conspiracy theory about a cabal of
Pakistani individuals conspiring to support bin Laden either directly or through a conspiracy of silence over a 5 year period. It has no substance and can be included easily in the main article. It is also,by definition, classic
652:
There is nothing in your guidelines that suggest this article is worthy for deletion. It meets EVERY SINGLE requirement necessary to be relevant to
Knowledge (XXG) (see guidelines.) Far from being "silly," this is a well-documented and serious article that is in the world's media day in/day out.
309:
this week: "We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of
Pakistan. But we don't know who or what that support network was. We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we
611:
I agree with users Max and Dr. Blofeld. This issue is of worldwide interest and the coverage and references from reliable sources puts this well out of the "conspiracy theory" category. I would also say that this "allegations of bin-Laden support in
Pakistan" topic is important enough to have a
546:
Even if it should turn out that no one in any
Pakistan institution aided bin Laden, many institutional leaders in other countries will likely not believe it. That will affect international relations for quite some time. We can't ignore this important fact, eliminate it, or suppress it.
380:
156:
454:
article needs to be improved. clearly not a Fringe theory and has substantial coverage in mainstream sources and easily verified. putting all these allegations in the parent article would give undue weight to these allegations which are unproven as of
90:
85:
94:
527:. These allegations are now being reported in large quantities and at the highest levels and is now the subject of several government inquires. If you want to argue that it is a conspiracy theory, then presently it is a notable one.
77:
381:
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=support+system+in+Pakistan+for+Osama+bin+Laden&oq=support+system+in+Pakistan+for+Osama+bin+Laden&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=13112l13112l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l
421:. The article stinks, but the question of a support system has been raised by many national leaders. The Death article isn't the proper place to describe how bin Laden allegedly lived near Abbotabad for five or six years.
150:
81:
73:
65:
612:
separate page for (rather than merging it with the "Deatrh" and "Reactions" articles, as Brmull suggests). This topic is large enough, different enough and interesting enough to be kept separate.
564:
All the important information is included in the "Death" and "Reactions" articles. This article is just an arena for
Pakistan's supporters and detractors to snipe at each other.
232:
171:
679:
662:
644:
621:
603:
589:
573:
556:
536:
519:
502:
485:
464:
446:
413:
392:
371:
353:
320:
271:
247:
224:
209:
201:
138:
117:
59:
132:
473:
128:
472:
supported in its importance by prominent people, conspiracy theories widely reported in the media can have articles here. A potential merger target is
258:. The article and its title do not suggest anything other than well-referenced allegations. It does not appear to be developing a conspiracy theory.
178:
344:, so I'm not 100 % sure we want to keep this one. The title itself needs work, but that can be solved through the normal proposed move process.
192:
rubbish; "which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning".
144:
654:
367:
17:
379:: The persons in favor of pakistan, want to blank the topic by deleting the article, this is very widely covered topic in media.
311:
288:
639:
694:
670:
This has been in the news repeatedly for weeks, making it clearly notable and has very reliable sources backing it up.
36:
498:
388:
481:
280:
693:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
422:
401:
317:
292:
197:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
675:
494:
658:
460:
279:. If this is a conspiracy theory, it's an extremely notable one. In the last week, it's been discussed in
617:
598:
552:
442:
384:
613:
515:
477:
260:
584:
476:, so there is a target to put this content in. However there is enough for a stand alone article.
404:. What needs to be said about this particular angle is covered sufficiently in the Death article.
314:
193:
164:
528:
337:
333:
671:
565:
434:
429:
Could perhaps be converted to a "List of allegations" article, since—if you filter out all the
532:
456:
362:
349:
243:
220:
189:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
569:
548:
438:
581:
Not a conspiracy theory at all, given the coverage and references from reliable sources. -
341:
511:
430:
329:
310:
have to investigate, and more importantly, the
Pakistani government has to investigate."
409:
284:
55:
345:
296:
239:
216:
111:
427:"The Pakistani authorities were not told of the U.S. mission, for fear of leaks."
634:
630:
300:
305:
405:
50:
597:
This is one of the most important issues in world affairs right now.♦
437:—all we have at this stage is opinions with no connected narrative. -
687:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
74:
Allegations of support system in
Pakistan for Osama bin Laden
66:
Allegations of support system in
Pakistan for Osama bin Laden
340:. If it blows over in a few weeks, we'll be left holding a
400:- Fringe whining that does not need to be forked away from
107:
103:
99:
163:
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
697:). No further edits should be made to this page.
233:list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions
210:list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions
8:
474:Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories
231:Note: This debate has been included in the
208:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:
207:
423:Death of Osama bin Laden#Role of Pakistan
402:Death of Osama bin Laden#Role of Pakistan
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
425:should be pretty much one sentence:
24:
1:
493:well-referenced article. --
714:
690:Please do not modify it.
680:23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
663:18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
645:10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
622:05:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
604:20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
590:14:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
574:07:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
557:04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
537:04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
520:03:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
503:00:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
486:22:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
465:21:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
447:21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
414:18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
393:17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
372:16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
354:16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
321:15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
272:15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
248:19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
225:19:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
202:14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
60:21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
281:The Wall Street Journal
338:significant coverage
299:discussed this with
385:Mahesh Kumar Yadav
293:the New York Times
44:The result was
383:It must be kept.
370:
270:
250:
236:
227:
213:
190:Conspiracy theory
705:
692:
650:Very Strong Keep
601:
588:
495:Reference Desker
377:Very strong keep
366:
342:deflated balloon
336:that has gotten
332:article about a
328:- a classically
277:Very strong keep
268:
267:
264:
259:
237:
214:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
713:
712:
708:
707:
706:
704:
703:
702:
701:
695:deletion review
688:
642:
599:
582:
478:Graeme Bartlett
297:President Obama
265:
262:
261:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
711:
709:
700:
699:
683:
682:
665:
647:
638:
624:
606:
592:
576:
559:
540:
539:
522:
505:
488:
467:
449:
416:
395:
374:
356:
323:
315:Metropolitan90
274:
252:
251:
228:
194:Mr.Grantevans2
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
710:
698:
696:
691:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
672:TheWilliamson
669:
666:
664:
660:
656:
651:
648:
646:
641:
636:
632:
628:
625:
623:
619:
615:
610:
607:
605:
602:
596:
593:
591:
587:
586:
580:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
558:
554:
550:
545:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
523:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
470:definite keep
468:
466:
462:
458:
453:
450:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
373:
369:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
334:fringe theory
331:
327:
324:
322:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
257:
254:
253:
249:
245:
241:
234:
229:
226:
222:
218:
211:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
689:
686:
667:
655:60.38.115.29
649:
626:
608:
594:
583:
578:
561:
543:
524:
507:
490:
469:
457:Wikireader41
451:
426:
418:
397:
376:
363:UltraExactZZ
358:
330:well-sourced
325:
304:
276:
255:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
631:Santa Claus
627:Strong keep
614:Obsidian123
609:Strong keep
600:Dr. Blofeld
595:Strong keep
579:Strong Keep
549:Ring Cinema
525:Strong Keep
452:Strong keep
439:Pointillist
301:Steve Kroft
151:free images
512:Epeefleche
306:60 Minutes
508:Snow Keep
419:Weak keep
326:Weak keep
266:anomhmata
240:• Gene93k
217:• Gene93k
285:BBC News
118:View log
562:Delete'
529:8digits
346:Bearian
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
566:Brmull
455:yet.--
398:Delete
318:(talk)
291:, and
263:Nipson
129:Google
95:delete
435:SYNTH
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
48:. --
16:<
676:talk
668:Keep
659:talk
629:per
618:talk
570:talk
553:talk
544:Keep
533:talk
516:talk
499:talk
491:Keep
482:talk
461:talk
443:talk
433:and
410:talk
406:Tarc
389:talk
359:Keep
350:talk
256:Keep
244:talk
221:talk
198:talk
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
46:keep
585:Max
368:Did
303:on
289:CNN
179:TWL
116:– (
678:)
661:)
643:)
637:(/
635:MK
620:)
572:)
555:)
547:--
535:)
518:)
501:)
484:)
463:)
445:)
431:OR
412:)
391:)
352:)
313:--
295:.
287:,
283:,
246:)
238:—
235:.
223:)
215:—
212:.
200:)
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
674:(
657:(
640:c
616:(
568:(
551:(
531:(
514:(
497:(
480:(
459:(
441:(
408:(
387:(
365:~
348:(
242:(
219:(
196:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.