Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches[edit]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches (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)

This article was forked out of the Casio F91W article in January 2010, following discussions related to it being WP:COATRACK material and giving undue weight to this particular topic (several editors raised these concerns on the talk page between 2006 and 2009, but Geo Swan (talk · contribs) defended starting the article and adding this material on the grounds that it illustrated problems with the US government's Guantanamo Bay-related policies - I don't know if this is still his or her view). The article is sourced almost exclusively to primary sources (two of the secondary news sources which are still 'live' refer only to a single detainee, and the others only note the watch aspect in passing when discussing individuals rather than linking the various people together), and an attempt by Fladrif (talk · contribs) to address BLP concerns in 2011 was promptly reverted. As such, I think that this article should be deleted as it is clearly surplus to the description of the issue at Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism, was initially started as a WP:COATRACK, is not a notable way to group these individuals and constructing an article largely around primary sources in this way violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COATRACK per nomination. Unnecessary article about a collection of largely non-notable individuals, started with the stated intention of making some sort of political point. What little relevant information there is has already been included in other articles and is therefore appropriately covered. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those individuals have been noted by reliable sources. What is this political point you refer to, and where else is this information? Diego (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be that the political point this article is trying to make is something like "the U.S. government, in a desperate attempt to justify the continued detention at Guantanamo of various people, has resorted to considering ownership of a certain model of watch to be a sign of terrorist affiliation, even though that model of watch is extremely common and used even by American military personnel". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Unnecessary list spinout; they may have blue links, so they may be notable in some capacity, but not for this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Unnecessary" is not a good argument. Also note that COATRACK is an essay, while per WP:Preserve (which is policy), well-sourced facts that would belong in a finished article must be kept. So I say these are needed facts, and the various news articles reporting on it seem to agree with this. Diego (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Coatrack is based off of WP:NPOV, a very important policy. Also, the "unnecessary" comment is because it strikes me as somewhat of a WP:CONTENTFORK, a relevant guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it non-neutral or against CONTENTFORK, instead of just a natural content split? I don't see it any different than the lists at Timeline of the release and transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism, Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or any one at Category:Lists of Guantanamo Bay detainees; and the rationale given by the nominator is mostly based on behavior by the creator, which is not a valid reason for deletion. It's true that this was undue weight for the Casio watch article, but that doesn't apply to a stand-alone list or a merge with Seton Hall reports. So what's special about this particular list? Diego (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "article" consists almost entirely of original research, relying upon primary sources, to wit: court/tribunal documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I removed them two years ago, but one of the editors who made these articles on Casio watches and Guantanamo detainees a pet project put them back in. Fladrif (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary sources have all been removed, everything that remains is now referenced to reliable sources. Diego (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So many !votes, so few arguments. Is there a reason why people doesn't like this article? Is it because it deals with prisoners at Guantanamo? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't delete topics covered by reliable sources just because they're controversial. Diego (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single argument contains any sort of variant of "I don't like it" or "We should censor this", so I think you're really grasping with comments like this... Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there are plenty of "not encyclopedic", "it doesn't belong" and WP:VAGUEWAVEs, which are functionally identical to "the topic should be removed because I say so" when devoid of arguments. The only valid argument was that of being based on primary sources, but there aren't any in the current version - all remaining references come from professional newspapers. Diego (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Not encyclopedic" means "this isn't something an encyclopedia covers". Notability is not, and has never been, the sole reason for getting rid of an article; one of the major ones has always been "This isn't the kind of subject that belongs". Encyclopedias don't pay attention to who owns what kind of watch, regardless of the sourcing, just like they don't pay attention to trivial signs on walls or fictional characters with fingerless gloves, regardless of the sourcing. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. When The Guardian, Associated Press, the BBC, Le Monde etc. all agree that "who owns what kind of watch" is relevant because the watch has been used to make bombs, and people has been sent to detention camps for owning it, then the topic is notable and there's no reason why we can't have an article about it or keep the content as part of a larger article. And no, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC has never been a valid argument either, as it's circular reasoning. Diego (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With that argument, I assume you wouldn't oppose a merge? (Also, this one is definitely not a passing mention). Diego (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Fladrif. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Anotherclown. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Agree it's an unnecessary list of non-notable individuals. Josophie (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism. The fact that ownership of this watch has been purportedly associated with terrorism may be notable. The identities of the particular individuals who were accused of terrorist associations on that ground are not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_accused_of_possessing_Casio_watches&oldid=1137994228"