Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks

:{{la|Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_2001_anthrax_attacks Stats])

:({{Find sources|Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks}})

This article is a monograph by user:EdLake, the name matches the webmaster of a conspiracist site, www.anthraxinvestigation.com (which is cited in the article). In line with the author's conspirtacist leanings, it is a lengthy novel synthesis from published sources many of which are not actually saying quite what the author claims. It's a WP:POVFORK of course. A proper timeline would be acceptable, but this fails WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- 34K of material was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2001_anthrax_attacks&diff=370384930&oldid=370303566 forked] from 2001 anthrax attacks. So, does the topic of this article merit a standalone article?

: If I am reading the revision history properly, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2001_anthrax_attacks&diff=375251326&oldid=370384930 this edit] is User:EdLake's sole contribution to this article. He added several unreferenced paragraphs at the top of the article, that may constitute original research. A cursory examination of his other edits, lower in the article, look like they are neutrally written and properly referenced.

: If the problem is that the lead paragraphs lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, or both, but the actual timeline portion of the article is OK, couldn't we just cut or rewrite the problematic lead paragraphs? Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - I find separate timeline entries very helpful when reading about events like this. I think this could be useful. Bali88 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - A timeline of the attacks is worthy of an article, but this is just a soapbox for conspiracy theories. Orser67 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete timeline of these events could be built, but this is a long way from it and it would be easier to toss it and start again. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork Secret ^account 18:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

: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.