Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deccan Mujahideen

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 Speedy Keep, per WP:SNOW, consensus is pretty clear. Yanksox (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deccan Mujahideen

Existence of group not established by any reliable sources and has not been verified; this article is also quite possibly an original research fork from November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Cerejota (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is certainly a notable and encyclopedic topic, and has many reliable sources in the reference section. Plenty more can be found elsewhere. This is a notable and verified, and is not original research. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if events should prove that the Deccan Mujahideen name is only a smokescreen, there is enough verifiable, useful information here to warrant the existence of an article. Wikipedia has many other articles about (as opposed to disseminating) disinformation, pseudo-science, hoaxes and so on. And it is by no means established yet that the Deccan Mujahideen do not exist. Q·L·1968 ☿ 12:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references, and the name has been mentioned extensively by reliable news sources in relation to the attacks. 86.44.30.119 Bucklesman (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the reliable sources mention this group is probably a hoax. There is not a single source that says this group exists and has been verified as existing, and there are no hits to a group o. In fact, as of the 29th, one of the terrorists captured has spilled the beans on the operation, and it appears to be from Pakistan - which puts to lie all of the earlier reports. In fact, according to the AP, in an article just published as I write this, the Indian authorities are saying this group doesn't exist [1]. Do you guys actually read the sources, or just googled for hits? Do we really want a stand-alone article about a hoax? That is completely un-encyclopedic! We should not be as gullible as the blogosphere. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's too early to make judgements here. The name has been used by Reuters and the BBC, I see no original research in the article. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep whether the group eventually turns out to have existed or not, the article will have notability for their mention in the events of this week and news coverage alone —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of November 2008 Mumbai attacks but too unwieldy to be included in original article. Clearly notable with plenty of refs. Joshdboz (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Vanderdecken; they have been named as the perpetrators in several good, reliable sources. It's not "un-encyclopedic", we do have several strong articles about hoaxes and even if it does, in the coming weeks, turn out to be a smokescreen there is enough information at the moment to prove otherwise and support this subject's inclusion. It perhaps needs refining a little, but that can be done as more info comes to light, and certainly isn't a reason to knee-jerk delete this. one brave monkey 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Please ignore original edit summary, got distracted. one brave monkey 17:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Though the group might not exist but,so far Deccan Mujaheddin has been the only group which has claimed the responsibility ... The name might be made up to confuse the indian investigation agencies but the page should be kept to tell who is this group (if any) or which group carried out the Mumbai attacks with this name. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep + comment: Since this group is the only one that has claimed responsibility for the Mumbai attacks, it is certainly a valid subject for an article. It is important, however, that the article reflects the doubts about the groups existence (a very quick scan suggests it does). – Clockwork Soul 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against future redirect and merge once the identities of the perpetrators become clear. RayAYang (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep + comment When people see something in the news that they don't understand they turn to encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Whether or not it's a smokescreen the name will come up, and thus there has to be information about it. There can be a section that states that it may be a smokescreen and hasn't been verified but either way it needs to remain. I would argue that it should remain even if it is proved the group doesn't exist. Encyclopedias must keep a record of events, ideas, groups. Basically it's a storehouse of information, and this is information regardless of whether or not the group is a smokescreen. When I first heard of the group I went to Wikipedia. When the article didn't exist I createde it and watched as people filled in more and more information about it.Bearon (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if this group is a smokescreeen they have claimed responsibility and are a matter of public interest that people have the right to find out about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.208.120 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is no WP:OR. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few problems with the article notwithstanding, it is generally well sourced and appropriate. JodyB_talk 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination is unnecessary. The story is currently unfolding. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Agreed that this is not OR. It can, however, be put in as a front name, if the "Deccan Mujahideen" turns out to be another known organization, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. This article can point to others. However, it is mentioned in the news and has become, de facto, a topic worthy of entry into Wikipedia. --71.131.176.216 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Although the so called group claimed responsibility for the attack, its existence has not been substantiated by any realiable source till now. Shovon (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whether or not the group exists, whether or not the group is the group that actually carried out the attacks we have a wealth of reliable sources dicussing the group. Moreover, AfDing during an ongoing event where further information is still coming through is really not a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Speedy close this AfD, its not making the article look nice. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and comment. To all those !voting to keep, this group has not been proven to exist. The article itself says "the existence of the Deccan Mujahideen has not been verified". The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. There could not be a more blatant failure of WP:V and this article does not meet the threshold for inclusion. The "keep" !votes are entirely along the lines of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Closing admin please take this into account. McWomble (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment That's a complete misunderstanding of basic policy. WP:V doesn't require that a subject exists. It requires that we have data on it. Thus God and Higgs boson both have articles even though neither's existence is verified. And we even have articles on James Bond and Batman and no one even thinks they exist. What matters is that we have verifiable material about the subjects. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Sorry Joshua man, methinks you be missing the point by a few thousand leagues. Of course the fact that this organization as a hoax claim is a verifiable fact that should be part of the article of the events! This is obvious significant encyclopedic value. Search "Verifiability not truth" and my nick on The Google, its my anthem! However, verifiability is an inclusion criteria for content, not an encyclopedic criteria.

For me, for something to have an article of its own, a number of verifiable, reliable sources must say that the topic is notable enough to warrant the attention of a single article *or* the original article is too long and specifics sections are spun off. This topic plainly doesn't deserve an article on its own. The hundreds of reliable verifiable source all say the same: there was an emailed claim using this name, and the authorities discredit this claim, and then each reliable and verifiable source got their own experts and "intelligence sources" to pretty much say the same. This is the *only* verifiable information we have.

This information is not enough to warrant a separate article, and unless anything else comes up, its ridiculous that we would have an article that would never amount to any significant information. It would be a stub that can never be expanded! This is precisely what makes the whole sorry affair seem like a good olde OR fork, which is about the most common policy clusterfuck in current event topics. Be part of the solution not the problem! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close apart from the nominator, I don't see anyone recommending deletion. There are one or two recommendations for merging, but the vast majority recommend keeping for now. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Of course, this will probably be closed as keep. Which is a disgrace, as there is not a single source that verifies that this group even exists. This should be a one sentence mention on November 2008 Mumbai attacks as the hoax it is described as being by pretty much every source. Quality, not quantity, of sources is what matters. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (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.