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 keep. Arguments based on WP:SPECULATION, WP:NDESC, WP:POVNAMING, and WP:ALLEGED are not grounds for deletion of an article and have consequently been discounted. They may be grounds for cleaning up the article, but this should be taken care of with normal editing. I offer no opinion on whether the article does actually contain these faults and these closing remarks should not be taken as encouraging (or discouraging) any such editing. Arguments based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS are grounds for deletion, but only if the article consists entirely of OR or is otherwise irretrievable. Otherwise it should be merely cleaned up. The majority in this debate argued not only that there was verifiable content, but none of the article was OR. WP:POVFORK is the only policy based argument which would call for outright deletetion, but those bringing this case failed to convince that there is another article which this is a fork of. The only other deletion argument raised is that this is some kind of WP:NOT case, I suppose meaning that political controversies should not be covered in Wikipedia. There is no policy or precedent basis for this position (although I really wish there was because it would save the heartache of a lot of difficult closes like this one). Against this, the keep camp produced strong WP:V and WP:N arguments which have the debate. I recommend that any further AfD brought here in less than six months should be speedy closed. SpinningSpark 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created a year ago by a now-banned sockmaster. It is a combination of one-WP:POV viewpoints, all clubbed together in a recipe to form a WP:SYNTHESIS piece. There are far too many problems in this article and they have been there for quite a long time and have not been fixed since the last nomination. I do not see why the content present here cannot be discussed in a more concise manner in the main Death of Osama bin Laden article. Moreover, an official US assessment has has concluded that "Pakistan did not know the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leader before the US raid" [1], [2]. In the wake of this conclusion, even "allegations" would not be an entirely impartial term to use; "conspiracy theories" is a better alternative and I see no reason why there should be an article on a stack of conspiracy theories. This is a textbook definition of WP:SOAP, IMO. As I have mentioned earlier, the text here belongs to Death of Osama bin Laden, if it should be mentioned anywhere at all. Mar4d (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTABLE as these allegations are notable in their own right and as such require an article. Also Pakistan has acknowledged al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden had "support system" in the country, but asserted that the government was unware of his presence on its soil. An Unwinnable War: Australia in Afghanistan 293-294 quoting J Brennan. We are looking right now at how he was able to hold out there for so long and whether or not there was any type of support system within Pakistan that allowed him to stay there, No shortage of sources which discuss this. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Manhunt: From 9/11 to Abbottabad - the Ten-Year Search for Osama bin Laden discusses these allegations, bin Laden must have had Pakistan support network, says Obama Obama presses Pakistan over Bin Laden's support network Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mention is dated a day after the operation and is not "Pakistan" acknowledging, but is rather the opinion of Hussain Haqqani - and let's not get started on the authoritativeness of a man who is a known anti-military mouthpiece and is currently in court for possible treason. The Obama link that you quote is old and dated 9 May 2011 - and here is the opening text: "Barack Obama has ratcheted up the pressure on Pakistan, demanding that the Pakistani government investigate whether its own people were involved in a network to support Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad hideout." He is referring to the government. Please go through the most recent news links, which imply that an official US conclusion has concurred that there was no sort of support for OBL in Pakistan among the top/government level. With that, everything else becomes irrelevant, trivial and conspiracy theory-esque. What support system, where, by whom and what established proof (if any)? For all I know, even the family living with him in that house could be called the lone support system. Mar4d (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well admission by Pakistani Ambassador to US is a major event, won't you say? The subject of the article is about allegations of support system in Pakistan and that, it is demonstrating beautifully. Your claim would have made some sense if the title were support system in Pakistan for Osama bin laden. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from replying under threads where I am not addressing you. It unnecessarily clutters up the discussion. You may use your own space below to make a point. Mar4d (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that I am doing this just to create clutter, nor is it unnecessary or irrelevant. What you said to me can be used against you too. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, read the guideline I cited for my keep vote. Notability is not temporary. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Mar, your sources are not an offical US announcement, it is the opinion of one man, which is quite clear in the sources you have given. Nice spin on them though. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: is this a joke? Periodically nominating an article for deletion like this shows clear lack of faith in the conclusions that were reached by closing editors of previous AFDs.

  NOTE: The comments on the 1^st & 2^nd nomination still hold true here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following was written in the previous nomination discussion:

While this may be semi-related to Death of Osama bin Laden, it has more to do with Pakistan's actions while bin Laden was alive, so a merge there would be inappropriate. These action are widely reported see, and notable, so this certainly warrants an article.
— User:ARTEST4ECHO

—I think it's relevant here also. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I ought to give a more elaborate explanation here as well. This has substantial coverage in mainstream sources (using similar language to our own Article Name) and easily verified. This meets WP:GNG. Other problems (if any) don't necessitate deletion (they are surmountable). Point to be noted here is WP:SUBPOV, which says ″Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.″ I hope this helps clear the air a little bit. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am going to be the lone voice here. Articles like these should not exist in Wikipedia. They are nothing more than synthesis and piled-on opinion pieces riding on the coattails of recentism that have to be expensively curated for POV and editing disputes. It seems every recent event is prone to bursting into whole series of expansive write-ups like this one. In my humble opinion, this merits nothing more than a few paragraphs in the Bin Laden article with a few supporting references. I went through the previous two AfDs and I have to say it's amazing to see how so many Wikipedians don't mind turning an encyclopedic topic into a rotting link farm. So there it is. §FreeRangeFrog 20:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD, so I see no reason to continue beating a dead horse. I honestly could care less whether or not the article exists, but consensus seems to be that it should, and I'm willing to stipulate to said consensus. Go Phightins! 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the most recent AfD and I see nothing quite convincing which says that there is overwhelming consensus that it should be kept. There were significant opposing points and they are valid, and continue to remain valid looking at the article in its present state. Mar4d (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Go Phightins! and nothing much is there which needs a change.
I have gone through the most recent AfD and I see nothing quite convincing which says that there is overwhelming consensus - two consecutive failed nominations don't tell you enough about the situation, you mean? You don't or —should I say, won't— find it convincing that's your problem.

No, there were not too many valid claims. This is not a fringe theory and received significant coverage. The simple fact is that the article might be offensive to some but the problem is, it cannot be the only reason for deletion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main article, Death of Osama bin Laden, is already long enough at 181kb, and it's also a Good Article. This article is notable and the subject received a great deal of coverage, so it is clearly not Synthesis. In fact, this is the proper way to use WP:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." First Light (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per below:
  1. WP:NDESC and WP:POVNAMING According to Article title policy, descriptive titles should not use non-neutral words or be judgmental. In this article the title implies that some wrongding has been done by Pakistan but not established in the content or any of the sources.
  2. WP:SPECULATION The article currently is merely a collection of speculations as no evidence has been found to support any of the claims, besides some people have even denied claims attributed to them, or have given a contradictory statement.
  3. WP:POVFORK This article is one of the best example of content forking, where the scope of the article is limited by its title. While the subject of the article is already discussed in other articles including Death of Osama bin Laden in a much wider scope.

--SMS ^Talk 12:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Smsarmad, the page Wikipedia:Article titles actually says, ″The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.″ I think that's what the title of this article is doing.

1. The article itself is not a speculation. WP:SPECULATION says, ″All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article″ - the subject of this article has probably received more coverage than most in recent times. All the claims are verified by reliable sources and made by authority figures (High-ranking CIA operatives, VP of global intelligence firm, The President of USA, Foreign Minister of France, Pakistani Ambassador and other international delegates), it is not predicated on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or a conspiracy theory..
2. WP:NDESC & WP:POVNAMING how are these even valid here? The page says, ″While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.″
   If you have a problem with the word "alleged", WP:ALLEGED says, ″Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.″ Hence, it's quite vague as to what you're complaining about and why.
3. See WP:CONTENTFORK actually says, “Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.”

   Advice: You ought to read the pages before you use them as a basis for your comments. Wikipedia is not a vote. - Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ever thought of acting upon your own advice? Had you read any of the linked pages you would not be saying so, let me do it for you:

1. WP:SPECULATION says: "...Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."
2. WP:NDESC says: "...In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title ... These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title..."
3. WP:POVNAMING says: "...Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue..."

And WP:ALLEGED is a guideline and can't override a policy, besides it deals with the content of the article not the title. --SMS ^Talk 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting out of context, SMSarmad. WP:SPECULATION is not a barrier to the article's existence. The lead says

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. .... It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included

The major problem alluded to here is the inclusion of unverifiable assertions or WP:OR, a criterion which this article passes with flying numbers.
OTOH, the line you quoted was actually regarding rumors about "product announcements". Besides, many of the sources used in the article aren't even speculative, they, with certainty, assert Pakistan's indispensable complicity in keeping Osama safely hidden. This article is really ″bending over backwards to be neutral″ (in First light's words below). And you're free to balance it with more info. Hence, the problems (if any exists at all) are fully surmountable.

As far as polices are concerned, this article meets all the criteria mentioned in the main three Policies of Wikipedia:

Notability—  certainly,
Verifiability—  absolutely
Neutrality— If neutrality means: fair, unbiased and proportionate representation of all significant views to have been published by reliable sources, then I think it does a good job in being neutral. Well, others may have their own views but surely it's a surmountable problem. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to add to my comment above, what some sources call these allegations:
  • C. Christine Fair said : "...we have to be faithful to the evidence and speculation is not evidence. Saying 'someone must have known' is not evidence,"
  • Emi Kolawole said : "The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound only hours outside of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, has created a firestorm of speculation as to who was involved in helping to shelter the al-Qaeda leader from detection by U.S. and Pakistani intelligence..."
  • The Nation : "While the US has raised speculation about Pakistans involvement in hiding bin Laden..."
  • Ray Suarez said : "And even President Obama has waded into the speculation of how much some Pakistani officials knew of bin Laden's whereabouts"

--SMS ^Talk 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then those sources should be in the article. That's why the article title included "allegations." But that's not a valid reason for deletion. In fact, it only supports the validity of this article and its title, showing that the subject is widely covered by now even more reliable sources. First Light (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources for some subject is not the only criteria for having an article on that subject. These sources given above are in support of my earlier comment that this article is a collection of speculations. And I find that we have a history of deleting speculative stuff. --SMS ^Talk 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't just speculation.

• "a report in the Pakistani press in December had quoted him (the former ISI Chief!) as saying that Osama's stay at Abbottabad was arranged by Brigadier (retired) Ijaz Shah, head of the Intelligence Bureau during 2004-2008, on Musharraf's orders."
• "Panetta (US Defense Secretary) stated that some "lower rank" officers in the military knew where Bin Laden was hiding..."
• " "Husain Haqqani the former-Pakistan Ambassador to the United States, who earlier said both countries "cooperated in making sure" that the operation leading to bin Laden's death was "successful",[11] has admitted that Osama bin laden indeed had a support system in Pakistan."
• Haqqani stated, "Obviously, bin Laden did have a support system (in Pakistan)."
• "WikiLeaks had revealed that a US diplomatic dispatch told the Americans that "many" inside Pakistan knew where bin Laden was." and that "whenever security forces attempted a raid on his hideouts, the enemy received warning of their approach from sources in the security forces."

But even if it were just speculation, we're talking about speculation by the US President, Secretary of Defense, world leaders everywhere, journalists everywhere, in countless news articles in reliable sources. That type of speculation, by itself, would warrant an article here. In fact, WP:SPECULATION doesn't even cover this sort of commentary by world leaders, journalists, spy agencies on both sides of a subject, and more. First Light (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you never read the complete article:

• The former ISI Chief! not only denied making that statement but also said "It is the hobby of the Western media to distort the facts for their own purposes" (as the news was picked up from Newsweek by Pakistani media).
• Panetta (US Defense Secretary and Director CIA at the time of OBL operation) in an interview to CBC television, talking about the support network said "...we have not had evidence that provides that direct link"
• Spokesperson of the US embassy in Islamabad also said that US has no evidence of Pakistan's involvement in supporting Osama bin Laden, while clarifying Leon Panetta's statement.
• Robert Gates (US Defense Secretary at the time of OBL operation) said, "I have seen no evidence at all that the senior leadership knew. In fact, I've seen some evidence to the contrary,...We have no evidence yet with respect to anybody else. My supposition is, somebody knew."
• The State department spokesperson also said that US has found no credible evidence for Osama's support network in Pakistan.
• US Special Operations Commander said, "We have no intelligence that indicates the Pakistanis knew he was there,"
• The former ambassador (Haqqani) also made a contradictory statement: "...both countries "cooperated in making sure" that the operation leading to bin Laden's death was "successful", and that President Obama called and thanked President Zardari for his cooperation."

Wide coverage and quotes (in fact speculations and suppositions) by notables doesn't prove anything, neither they deserve coverage here in a separate and dedicated article titled "Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden". --SMS ^Talk 08:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to what First Light rightly pointed out,

.

I hope this helps clear the air a little bit.

BTW, SMSArmad, your POV-based chicaneries are astounding. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Smsarmad, in other words, the article is a combination of evidence and conjecture. I say conjecture rather than speculation because WP:Speculation covers a completely different subject, that of predicting the future of products, movies, etc. by journalists — not statements that combine evidence and conjecture by US Presidents, Defense Secretaries, ISI heads who later recant (no doubt under threats), and other world leaders such as David Cameron. As it stands, this article meets, and even exceeds Wikipedia policies for neutrality, secondary sources (vs. synthesis of primary sources), and yes, 'speculation.' First Light (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite so, and also one must understand that when an incumbent President of USA and Prime Minister of UK make substantial claims like that which may have international ramification, they are actually being courteous or polite and/or even secretive. Use common sense. They are not allowed to make whimsical or unfounded assertions. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, which surprised me. Initially, I looked at this and thought, "Fork City!" But on reviewing the discussion here, and the quotes and sources in the article, I think this could, with many eyes, be kept tame. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Like Bearian, I was also pleasantly surprised at the article's neutrality and tameness, and impressed with the referencing. Regarding claims of WP:SYNTHESIS, a look at the sources in the article puts a lie to that claim. Many extremely reliable sources have already done the work of putting the concepts together (Bin Laden + support system in Pakistan), so the Wikipedia article is clearly not our own synthesis. Many of the sources even have titled their articles in a way that is similar to ours, though even less neutrally by not including the word "allegations" in their title. Just a few examples:

• "Obama: Bin Laden must have had Pakistani 'support network'" (USA TODAY)
• "Osama bin Laden must have had support network in Pakistan" (The Guardian (London))
• "WikiLeaks: Osama bin Laden 'protected' by Pakistani security" (The Guardian (London))
• "Osama bin Laden has support network in Pakistan: Australian PM" (News.xinhuanet.com)
• "Afghanistan: Pakistan Must Have Known bin Laden Was Living in Abbottabad" (Voice of America)
• "Osama Bin Laden had support system in Pakistan: envoy" (Indian Express)
• "Osama Bin Laden Killed: U.S. Intelligence Probes Possible Pakistani Support System" (ABC)
• "Pakistan government knew where Osama was: Carl Levin" (The Express Tribune)
• "Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces" (The Globe and Mail (Canada))
• and the list goes on.

You can see that most of the articles about this very subject assumed it was a fait accompli rather than just allegations. Our article title is bending over backward to be neutral, in other words, and is also not synthesis. First Light (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per First Light and Darkness Shines. The research in the sources FL made above is enough to get the point and partially per Go Phightins! The article is not Synthesis as far as I see and is well sourced using reliable sources, most of which doesn't mention the term "allegations" as said by First Light above. This topic has received ample amount of reliable sources and thus the topic is independently notable enough and presented in an accepted neutral manner, to keep it. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation^nine 00:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - as a POV fork and an original essay. Not an encyclopedic topic. Some content might be mergable. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it an original essay? There are dozens of mainstream news articles and opinion pieces on this very subject, with nearly the exact same title, so we are only reporting what reliable sources are stating. There is no synthesis or original research here. First Light (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a ballot box, my dear where you come out of nowhere and simply put your vote down without any credible rationale. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is well sourced and reasonably balanced, although it could be more organized especially regarding denials. Also, the consequences of the issue discussed are still playing out on a grand stage. Current, yes, but still encyclopedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2012 (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.