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 no consensus. Trending towards keep, but with some quite superficial "keep" opinions, so I'm not comfortable with finding a consensus to keep. A merger discussion can still be had on the talk page. Sandstein 09:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

• Tiger Squad (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Firqat el-Nemr (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full of dubious accusations of horrible crimes against living people, sourced entirely to one anonymous Saudi. Runs afoul of WP:BLP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Also claims there are five members, fifty and six. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC) 17:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• disagree, I think this is supported about as much as it acceptable for wikipedia 162.213.136.97 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article about a covert Saudi hit squad involved in the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. The subject has got enough enough coverage already in the independent international media^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} New York Times^[9][10][11] to pass WP:GNG and more details are expected as the Khashoggi investigation proceeds. If you have concerns about a particular individual/s mention or his coverage, Talk page is the venue for such a discussion. per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP--DBigXrayᗙ 18:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the two Sabah stories (which say nothing about a "tiger squad" nor describe what our article does), these are all explicitly based on the same Middle East Eye story, which is based on the same anonymous Saudi, whose account the outlet admits it can't verify. Per EXCEPTIONAL, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes the notability threshold. if you have concerns about article content then AfD is not the place for that discussion.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed bit here is the very existence of the subject. Cleaning it up would mean blanking the page. I've been told to propose articles for deletion instead of doing that, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, the quote below, the New York Times has independently verified the identity of the squad members so we aren't really takling about just 1 source. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything in that story mention a fifty-member Tiger Squad which has tortured and killed multiple people at Salman's behest? Or does it just say nine of Khashoggi's particular fifteen had government jobs? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fifteen member team that visited Turkey was a subset of this 50 membered organisation. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to one anonymous guy. What you're trying to pull here is like me finding some dingbat who thinks the Canadian government is run by lizards, finding a credible source that confirms Trudeau heads the government and pretending this verifies Trudeau's the head lizard. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoL Good luck, in getting that published in all these newspapers. The Significant coverage criteria is met just by these 2 sources alone [1][2] --DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the second one is clearly just relaying what the first one said. It's in plain English and attributed three times, twice in Bold Capitalized Hyperlink. Seven times, the reporter is abundantly cautious in emphasizing how these claims are from the lone mysterious source, not from the Outlook Web Bureau. How are you not seeing this? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with InedibleHulk. WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", also per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." (So referencing Middle East Eye multiple times does not make the event more eligible to be in Wikipedia). As I suggest above, we should wait for top tier news organizations to see if they cover the matter. And to the point of DBigXray, as far as I know the NYT has only covered information regarding the killers of Koshaggi, and not made refernece to a larger killing squat going after multiple targets. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 6:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Definite Keep I second DBigXray that the subject has enough coverage to mandate an article. We are not going to censor Wikipedia! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're going to slander up to fifty named people, based on the say-so of one shadowy figure. Or if the unsubstantiated mudslinging later turns out to be true, we're going to be tortured and murdered by the Tiger Squad for "exposing" them. All because a few bad apples think we're a social justice firm or detective agency that doesn't need independent secondary coverage for things to seem verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about us, at least you will survive as you are inedible and trying your best to get it deleted, you are in good books! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Hulk has nothing to worry about. It is clear to me that some of the folks on this AfD have incorrect understanding of WP:INDEPENDENT actually means, And I would request them to read the page WP:Identifying and using independent sources once again. if All these reliable newspapers are reporting this, then we include the same information. It is the reliable newspapers job to do the Research and publish it not wiki editors to do that. If New York Times, Washington Post, Outlook, Middle East Eye etc finds the news credible enough to be published, then we mention it in our articles.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This subject has got a lot of coverage in the News recently and something that has a vague name like Tiger🐅 squad really needs to have an article for those who want to get information about it.SharabSalam (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even tiger blood doesn't get an article for sounding neat, and millions of people know the self-proclaimed warlock who popularized that stupid theory. An actual tiger expert took the time to analyze and debunk it, among mountains of other secondary coverage. If we don't lower the bar for pop culture phenomena from A-list actors, we shouldn't lower it for hysterical slander some guy on the Internet came out with one day. Should be deleted and revisited when and if it's ever verified. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite Keep: There is more than enough corroborated evidence to substantiate the article, and the primary sourced which broke the story is itself a credible news outlet. Further information and sources are highly expected the be produced in the near future. LissanX (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highly expected by whom? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From everyone that has been following the constant flow of new revelations arising from the aftermath of the Jamal Khashoggi murder. The same outlet has already been among the first to report information that it took about seven minutes to carry out; that forensic specialist Salah Muhammed al-Tubaigy cut Khashoggi's body into pieces while Khashoggi was still alive, as he and his colleagues listened to music^[1]; the role of Ahmad Asiri's in the death (who was later fired)^[2]; that seven of the fifteen murder suspects are Mohammed bin Salman's bodyguards^[3]; and now the existence of the Tiger Squad,^[4] which is itself already largely substantiated by previous reports from other outlets.^[5][6] LissanX (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of that quick information true yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of it true or is any of it acknowledged by the accused murderers themselves? Are you proposing we delete the entire killing of Jamal Khashoggi article and replace it with "He died in a fist fight" because that’s all that’s "true"? LissanX (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that article is sourced to multiple identified people, or anonymous people said to work for known police and government agencies. It easily passes GNG, and this page is crystal clear about which article I'm proposing for deletion. The main article's Talk Page has a section where I'm also clear about why I think "fist fight" is untrue, why I scrubbed that term and why other editors should continue to leave it out. Is any of your quick info acknowledged as true by identified people or anonymous people said to work for authoritative investigatory agencies? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge: sounds to me like a small entity mentioned by the Middle East Eye on news coverage for Jamal Khashoggi's killing and does not warrant a whole article about it. It is noteworthy to mention it in the article regarding Jamal Khashoggi's killing, but why create a whole article about it sourcing one unproven and nameless source? Unless multiple RS exist of such a squad with the name I don't believe it is noteworthy of its own article. Most sources used on the article are about dissdents allegedly removed by a Saudi premediated killing such as Jamal Khashoggi's and makes no mention of a "Tiger" squad yet the incidents are cited in the article as members of the so called "Tiger" squad. It's a confusing article and provides undue weight. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Most sources used on the article...make no mention of a 'Tiger' squad." What article are you reading? The first of 17 sources from Outlook India has, as the very first line of the article, "The Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad was formed over a year ago and comprises of 50 of the skilled intelligence and military operatives in the kingdom." The second source from the Mirror writes "Mr Khashoggi, 59, was tortured and murdered by a hit squad, known as the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad." The third source from the CBC writes "The Firqat el-Nemr or "tiger squad" — a hit team of Saudi agents — is believed to be behind the savage murder of Khashoggi in Istanbul." The fourth source from The Nation says "Mr Khashoggi, 59, was tortured and murdered by a hit squad, known as the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad." The fifth source from another article on the Mirror says "Mr Khashoggi, 59, was killed by a hit squad, known as the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad." The sixth and seventh are both the main article from the Middle East Eye. The rest of the sources are about various aspects of the article which corroborate the the first seven sources. The existence of a "small entity" which works directly for the leadership of a major country tasked with murdering journalists in Western countries is more than noteworthy. It's also relevant to others than Jamal Khashoggi, and the scope of this entity can’t be constricted to the death of Jamal Khashoggi article alone. LissanX (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like most of those sources you took the effort to quote here are mirrors the Middle East Eye source. Provide me a global leak, a US or Turkish intelligence report, or at least a named official calling it The "Tiger squad" and it will stand credible to me as entity. WP:RS. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the other thread, Al Jazeera, Al-Alam and France 24 are all state news outlets and lend credibility to the Middle East Eye, which was itself a reliable source to begin with. The Washington Post also has reported the same with no mention of the Middle East Eye, writing "The U.S. government learned last month that Assiri was planning to create a “tiger team” to conduct covert special operations, I’m told". The CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking was first sourced by the San Jose Mercury News, a small news outlet not anywhere near the size of the Middle East Eye. The Snowden leaks were also revealed the same way as the Tiger Squad revelations. Al Jazeera, Al-Alam, Sama News, France 24, etc. LissanX (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP mentions the team in regards to Khashoggi's killing. Heck, it states "Assiri was planning to create", hence no attribution that squad already exists and has performed many operations already. We can create an article regarding the "Tiger squad" once more "multiple high-quality sources" exist. as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". As of now, I don't see any "high quality sources" exist apart of the Middle East Eye, and the multiple other sources which cite it in its news. I'm not denying the existence of such a squad, I wouldn't know or care. I'm calling it not notable enough to warrant its own article. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, clear contradiction of the alleged creation date and the alleged creator isn't "lending credibility" to this story, by any stretch of imagination. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I am not extremely familiar with these sources, which does not mean that they may not be valid... But it makes me wonder, have top-tier publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Financial Times... mentioned the term "Tiger squard"? Here is a quick analysis of some of the sources listed:

1. The 1st one is the original source that reported the story, as I gather from the discussion above. Wikipedia says of theMiddle East Eye that it is funded by Qatar, an antagonist of Saudi Arabia. That does not mean that the story is wrong, but that more corroboration is needed, and that one source can't be trusted.
2. The 2nd source, Outlook India, there is no wiki article about it, which makes me wonder how prominent of a source it is.
3. The 3rd source, in the Mirror, which is described in Wikipedia as being a Tabloid, making its reliability really questionable
4. The 4th source (CBC), is actually an opinion piece, which can have some weight, but less than if it was an actual news piece.
5. And since I don't have the time now to check every source, I will skip to the 9th one, which stood out to me, as it is the NYT (finally, a top-tier source I can recognize), but :I don't see in it being mentioned anything about a larger killing squad, out of which the 15 operatives involved are only a subset, and that such larger squat has made multiple assassination attempts on dissidents, which is what this article is about.

Don't take me wrong, these assertions may end up being corroborated, and sadly there is a chance of them indeed being true. However, at this point I am doubtful that these claims from these sources can constitute an encyclopedic article. Respectfully, (talk) user:Al83tito 6:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Al83tito: see below my comment. --Saqib (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see below. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Washington Post noted "The U.S. government learned last month that Assiri was planning to create a tiger team to conduct covert special operations." Pass GNG. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep on the basis there are plenty of coverage in Arabic sources. [3] --Saqib (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Saqib, Since Arabic is the language of the peninsula where this squad is active, it is quite expected that we will have good Arabic sources as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a quick glance, its noteworthy to mention that most of the Arabic sources are from small time newspapers or online journals, and blog posts. Less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact as per WP:RS. Not even Al Jazeera, Saudi's Arabia worst critic in Arabic, mentioned a "Tiger squad". There's no fact checking here and the article regardign a "tiger squad" was deleted in Arabic Wikipedia for lack of reliable evidence. Wikiemirati (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of bias of the source require more evidence than just "they aren’t friends with the Saudis". To Saqib and DBigXray's point, there are numerous online sources in Arabic, including one from Al Jazeera, Al-Alam, Sama News, France 24, etc. LissanX (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone of those sources mentions "Middle East Eye" as the primary source. According to WP:RS "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source." Again, where did I claim that those sources are biased? I am only quoting WP:RS "Less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera, Al-Alam and France 24 are all state news outlets and lend credibility to the Middle East Eye, which was itself a reliable source to begin with. The Washington Post also has reported the same with no mention of the Middle East Eye, writing "The U.S. government learned last month that Assiri was planning to create a “tiger team” to conduct covert special operations, I’m told". The CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking was first sourced by the San Jose Mercury News, a small news outlet not anywhere near the size of the Middle East Eye. The Snowden leaks were also revealed the same way as the Tiger Squad revelations. LissanX (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a columnist (not a reporter) relaying hearsay that Assiri (not the prince) was planning to create (not had created) a "tiger team" (not "tiger squad") in September 2018 (not 2017) for covert special operations (not murdering its critics) is not even close to "reporting the same", unless you ignore the who, why, what, where, when and how aspects. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi - not independently notable - all the coverage this alleged hit squad has received is in the context of Khashoggi (try searching in English or Arabic excluding -Khashoggi). My WP:BALL says it will probably be renamed/reorganized following the fallout - but regardless - as long as the coverage of this alleged small unit is in the context of a single event - it should be at the event (HITSQUAD1E). Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me be clear that this is not the first or the only high profile killing from this Squad, so arguments of 1E are not applicable here. The very existence of other high profile killings from this squad makes it inappropriate for a merge. The subject has significant coverage needed to have a stand alone article. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, this group is allegedly responsible for the assassinations of Saudi princes, judges, and attempts on other journalists and activists. This is not limoted to Jamal Khashoggi. This is similar to the Chain murders of Iran. LissanX (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Granted, however Icewhiz point is about wikipedia notability regardless if such squad exists or not. It is notable to mention in regards to Jamal Khashoggi's killing. However, for it to be a separate article it should fulfill Wikipedia:Notability and needs multiple third party sources, not just a single source mentioning an unnamed official imo. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a stub article with two independent sources (MEE + Ignatius/The Washington Post). Death squads are part of the real world, whether they are called that or rather by euphemisms such as covert operation teams. United States Navy SEALs refers to many living individuals. Whether they are involved in defending democracy and human rights or rather assassins who defend US economic and geopolitical interests is for the reader to interpret; whether members of the Tiger Squad are defending Saudi society against the risks of a Syria civil war scenario or are assassins preserving a mediaeval culture is for the reader to interpret; whether they are members of a coverts operations group is something that we should be able to report based on RSs, with appropriate NPOVing. Asiri is referred to by both main sources. How many of the others can be referred to, or in what language, is obviously a WP:BLP matter. Repeating this argument in slightly more detail: being a member of a death squad, covert operation teams, or any military organisation, which may or may not carry out war crimes, does not imply responsibility of that individual for a national-level-criminal-law crime or a war crime. The US death squad training school (SOA) Wikipedia entry includes links to at least a few apparently living people such as Richard Downie and Colonel Robert F. Alvaro. Should their names be removed under WP:BLP? Articles of death squads (typically with SOA training) such as Atlacatl Battalion, Argentine Anticommunist Alliance, Caravan of Death, Batallón de Inteligencia 601 concern death squads mostly active in the 1970's and 80's, and Battalion 3-16 (Honduras) is for a death squad apparently revived in the 2000's. There are lots of named death squad members in these, and many are likely to be still alive, even if not so young. Obviously WP:BLP care is needed in this article - some of the edits have separated claims of facts from citations, but that requires editing work, not deletion. Should we delete List of United States Navy SEALs which, depending on your interpretation, effectively accuses the listed people (many presumably alive) of "horrible crimes" in the same sense as this proposed deletion? Boud (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Another example where Wikipedia states the names of alleged members of, or people responsible for, covert operation/death squads (thanks LissanX): Chain_murders_of_Iran#Investigations. Boud (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: At present, sources are not sufficient/reliable enough. Also please consider WP:BLP, esp. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." and Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a serious issue,  WikiHannibal please point out which persons mention here is a BLP violation and I am willing to remove that right away. How ever I am not willing to agree to attempts to WP:Censor facts that have been widely covered by reliable international media simply with an excuse of WP:BLP --DBigXrayᗙ 17:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all mentions of the persons in the article violate WP:BLP. Regarding WP:Censor, it deals with facts, and that is something that is not established (following wiki rules) in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns may be unfounded or valid but AfD is not the venue for that discussion. Start a thread on its talk page. We are here to discuss the notability of the topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, you asked for explanation ("please point out which persons mention here is a BLP violation") so I responded. If you wanted a new thread, you should have been more specific, or create one yourself? You may move all of this discussion, except for my Delete comment+explanation, there if you wish. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and explain once again, WikiHannibal This is AFD not BLP Noticeboard. Dont mix the two. I am asking you to make your arguments for or against the notability of this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

OK, I see your point. As I stated, I have my doubts about the sources; the BLP was an appendix to that. And since you asked about the BLP part of my comment, I responed..) BTW, BLP is mentioned in the nomination at the very top. Anyway, WP:DELETE is not just about notability, per WP:DEL-REASON, BLP issues are a valid reason. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHannibal, What is exactly your doubt on the sources ? Are these newspapers not reliable or independent enough for you ? Point the exact problem here. (regarding BLP if you feel some one has wrongly been added, start a discussion on talk page, not an AfD)--DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

• Comment Article already has 22,000 Page views, graph above since its creation on 23 October,another factor that supports the notability of this article --DBigXrayᗙ 18:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views do not establish notability and are not taken into consideration in Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. High page views may stem from the fact that this article is linked from the main article in Killing of Jamal Khashoggi which almost already covers the same content in this article. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this is the only criteria to keep, this just supports the notability claims. No, Killing of Jamal Khashoggi, clearly does not contain all the same content. If 22,000+ people want to read this article, then there has to be very strong reasons to delete and deny them this information. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may create Israel army sharks as an article and support it with million verified sources from middle eastern news on how Israel trained sharks to kill Egyptians and it will probably gain millions of views but notability of such subject will not be passed. That event has multiple verifiable sources compared to this "squad". Point is, once multiple high quality exceptional sources exist you may create an exceptional article WP:EXCEPTIONAL Wikiemirati (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can create anything, the only problem you will find is reliable newspapers will not be publishing any nonsense that risks their credibility. So your newly created article will still end up CSDed for lack of reliable source as refs. Hope you understand the problem with your example. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you may not as per Wikipedia:Notability. If thats your reasoning, then I can create all the fringe theories deleted from wikipedia. You will be surprised with the amount of nonsense published by newspapers. Most news don't care about credibility, they care about their impact factor and viewers views, which is why journalists love covering controversy. Regardless I'm not here to argue the reliability of Middle East Eye. This topic also lacks multiple reliable sources (only 2 I counted so far), which is even way less than the news that was reported in the example I stated. With your reasoning, it should be deleted or merged then (for the lack of reliable sources). Wikiemirati (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi; I don't see any coverage unrelated to that event, and the sourcing other than Middle East Eye is largely trivial (that the group of killers might be known as the tiger team). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very famous. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to a better named article. As a previous editor said "Death squads are part of the real world..." and probably deserve an article; does one already exist under another name??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ariconte this is the only article for this particular Saudi death squad and the above is the commonly used English title for it. It does have an arabic name and some soutces also call it Tiger group --DBigXrayᗙ 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course death squads exist in the wild. So do penises and tigers. But that doesn't mean any nameless person can start a lurid online rumour about a celebrity's personal death squad and expect it to appear both real and notable on Wikipedia, anymore than Lady Gaga's penis deserves a standalone article full of uncorrobarated scandalous adventures throughout Parts Unknown (it's very famous). Her own BLP doesn't even mention the little guy's purported existence, and neither should Mohammad bin Salman's mention his invisible tiger boys. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia requires us to use reliable source WP:RS. This policiy nowhere states that a "reliable source that is using an anonymous trusted source" cannot be used as a valid reference. The reason why this anonymous person cant publish his name is obvious, he will be the next victim of this squad if he published his name. It does not mean these newspapers dont know his name,they just agreed to not publish his name. All these internationally renowned newspapers are putting their own credibility on line while publishing this article, so obviously they have their own checks and balances to make sure nonsense doesn't get published in the name of anonymous source. The very fact that these reliable newspapers around the world have published this is good enough for Wikipedia. You shouldn't be expecting an official statement in such cases. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are no "these newspapers". The Middle East Eye exclusively talked to him, and every other outlet just covered the existence of that story, not the substance of it. By attributing all claims to this exclusive, they don't risk their own credibility in the slightest (because the story really was published), and did no original research beyond finding the story online and recapping it to catch clicks (exactly like Wikipedians do). If you won't trust me on this, try to find another source that claims to have met him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with InedibleHulk. Only one news outlet mentioned the "anonymous trusted source" and another which slightly hinted the possible existence of such squad. If more details regarding the existence of this squad emerge you're welcome to start a whole encyclopedia about it but so far, in my opinion, the current information can be incorporated and merged into Killing of Jamal Khashoggi article, the main subject in which this mysterious organization existence was talked about. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post David Ignatius article is independent of the Middle East Eye source; it talks about a tiger team, which is not a significantly different name to tiger squad, given that these are both English translations from the original Arabic; and it uses the term "covert special operations" team rather than "death squad", but these terms have a very strong overlap in meaning - teams of agents that do secret operations that frequently include assassinations that would be politically embarrassing (and legally risky, under local law where the events occur and possibly under international law such as the Geneva Conventions) if the agents were caught. This is not just my understanding of English, it's also a Guardian columnist's understanding of Ignatius' English - 'a "tiger team" to conduct covert special operations, which sounds a lot like a death squad charged with hunting down anyone unlucky enough to find themselves on Bin Salman's enemies list.' Boud (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius talks of a different team which hadn't yet been (and might still not be) assembled when this article's team is purported to have already killed for a different leader. Assuming covert operations must mean clandestine killing is as foolish as assuming overt operations must mean public killing. Many teams work on many things for many heads under cover of state secrecy, from forced disappearance to data processing and every task in between. Even if Freedland/Bourne's hunch about the other later team is correct, that would only score a point toward keeping another later article. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Possibility for a 'better named article' or at least one to consider the relationship of: Extrajudicial killing. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep..an operation like the one committed against Jamal Khashoggi doesn't come out of the blue, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - big operation. lasting effects. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Doesn't appear to be support in reliable sources for the article. zchrykng (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. refs are rock solid. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect to/with Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. No mention of it before this and no evidence it even exists. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRYSTAL. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi per above. Only mentioned in relation to that event. ansh666 07:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE contents selectively to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi, notable only as part of that event. Do not, however, REDIRECT name "Tiger Squad." There are too many other tiger Squads in the world. Many military units have used this name, as have Tamil Tigers units, and other groups of many sorts, especially sports teams. LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers, Princeton Tigers, Clemson Tigers and other teams dominate hits on the 2-word phrase "tiger squad".E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough independent reliable sources have significantly covered the subject.[4][5][6] Capitals00 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept this should be moved to something like Tiger Squad (Saudi operatives), Tiger Squad (Firqat el-Nemr), or similar because, as I note one comment up, this term is in COMMON use for other, notable groups.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changing form merge to keep) Listening to a an in-depth BBC report on this on this squad of Saudi government hit-men. Don't have the URL, but it is enough to make me change my iVote becasue it is now very clear to me that this secret Saudi squad of hit-men has been operating for some time, and is notable beyond Kashoggi killing. I continue to urge move to something like Tiger Squad (Saudi operatives), Tiger Squad (Firqat el-Nemr).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment yes, as E.M.Gregory rightly said above ^[1] BBChas also published about this subject and BBC has referred to its own Saudi source. So clearly the arguments of lack of sources are invalid now. Enough reliable sources independent of each other have been presented for the article to be kept. Regarding the rename EMG, you are welcome to start a thread for rename discussion on the talk page, personally I believe as per WP:COMMONNAME and wP:SMALLDETAILS dicatate that this article title is better. but anyway AfD is not the place to discuss the appropriate article title. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:58, 10 November 2018 (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.