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. Userification happily done on request. Courcelles 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Kandahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:N. No reliable independent sources discuss this "Jihad Kandahar" organisation, only primary sources. The unnamed unit is mentioned once, on the Guantanamo Inmate Database (linked in the article). This is az bare mention, not any significant info. No other sources could be found through Google Books or News Archive. Fram (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not just non-notable--a stronger case for deletion is that the article makes serious allegations about living people (specifically, that they're members of a terrorist organisation) based only on primary sources.

  Fram is correct to say this isn't notable, but the primary sources mean it is verifiable. Because it's verifiable it shouldn't be entirely removed from Wikipedia, but because it's not notable, it shouldn't have its own article. A merge or redirect are the only outcomes that would be fully in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I'm normally vocally opposed to "delete then redirect" as an outcome but in this case the BLP issue means that deletion prior to redirecting is a sensible precaution. Delete, then create redirect to Taliban which should contain a footnote or one-line mention of this organisation's alleged existence. Closer to consider protecting the redirect, because I'm anxious to ensure that living people are not named as members of this organisation without excellent sources.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are quite incorrect in your interpretation of our policies. Plenty of things that are perfectly verifiable will never need a merge or a redirect, but just don't belong on Wikipedia. being verifiable doesn't entitle anything to have a redirect here. This doesn't mean that your suggestion that in this case, a redirect to Taliban would be the best solution is necessarily incorrect (I believe it would violate WP:UNDUE, but that's just my opinion). But the reason why you propose this and oppose a deletion is incorrect. Fram (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't actually oppose a deletion. It says "delete" in bold up there, just before my signature. It's just that my "delete" is based on BLP and not notability, and is contingent on creating a redirect.

      My interpretation of Wikipedia policies is that users don't get to remove sourced information from the encyclopaedia on notability grounds alone, which I think is an uncontroversial reading of WP:PRESERVE; I believe it's the opposite view that's a misinterpretation of policy.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • PRESERVE presents considerations, not hard rules. And note that PRESERVE actually includes "WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal." Combined with WP:V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", it becomes quite clear that there may well be information that is verifiable but should still not be on Wikipedia at all. "Preserve appropriate content." "Do not remove good information"... what is appropriate or good content is not decided by PRESERVE, and it doesn't claim that all verifiable information is good, appropriate information. The white pages are verifiable, but we wouldn't try to preserve info taken from them (e.g. a list of families in county X who had a telephone in 1947 may be perfectly verifiable, but wouldn't need an article, redirect, merge, ...). Fram (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apart from the five pillars there aren't hard rules at all. But there are soft rules we're supposed to consider and the fact that WP:PRESERVE presents considerations for editorial judgment rather than hard rules doesn't mean editors get to disregard it; WP:PRESERVE is policy (and notability is not). I don't agree that "...Wikipedia should not have an article on it" means "should not be on Wikipedia at all". That's not what it says and it strikes me as an extremist reading of a more moderate policy. To my mind, "should not have an article on it" means what it says: a separate article is inappropriate.

          The white pages (which I presume is an American institution of some kind) is, like so many analogies, a bit of a straw man. I didn't say "let's include material from the white pages". I said "let's create a redirect to a one-line mention of a terrorist organisation linked to the Taliban".—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only a few brief mentions in primary sources, far from satisfying WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable organisation. Not even verifiable (no secondary sources, no relibable sources independent of the subject), so a redirect is not appropriate--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Pontificalibus. IQinn (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When the word "alleged" appears repeatedly, the big red WP:BLP flag goes up. Given that almost all sources are from the entity that wants to prosecute them, even I can't deem them reliable. The one thir-party source doesn't even verify anything, in fact, it hinders the claim to verifibility. On top of that, the lack of adequete referencing has me doubting that this unit exists at all, much less is notable. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:N isn't met, and there are serious BLP issues with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A request -- I request a relisting, rather than closure, as the sheer volume of recent ((xfd)) has left me without enough time to respond to this one. Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - also lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails on notability per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (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.