Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Konduz

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. Fram (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect guest house, Konduz[edit]

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Guest houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that contrary to claims by certain users on similar AfDs I have no idealogical feelings I'm trying to push, and I am not trying to censor the wiki - I simply want to demand of these articles the same standards we demand for everything else. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The nominator and I have discussed his interpretation of "significant coverage". I honestly believe he is misinterpreting our policies. He has argued, in other {{afd}}s, that multiple references can't cumulatively add up to significant coverage. I disagree. We know some things about the suspicious guest houses. We don't know everything. But complete knowledge of all aspects of a topic, while ideal, should not be required to draft articles of encyclopedic value. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't portray my argument in a misleading fashion - I've argued that multiple, individual mentions of the guest houses within documents not focused on the houses in any way, shape or form, not even as a secondary subject, do not add up to significant coverage. Your comment, either deliberately or accidentally, makes it sound like I've argued multiple references aren't "significant coverage". Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in secondary sources. Also no information in the article about the suspect guest houses, only that they were mentioned in intelligence reports (primary sources). This goes beyond original research to original collection of raw data. It could be important but still has 2-3 stages to go before it's ready for WP. Borock (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are mentions in US intelligence documents and nothing more than very brief mentions elsewhere. This isn't enough to satisfy WP:N. Hut 8.5 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the existence of the topic, a hypothesised single 'guest house' in Konduz, is pure WP:Synthesis of WP:PRIMARY sources. No independent sources demonstrating that these reports are about the same house, let alone giving it sufficient (i.e. "significant") coverage to demonstrate its notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (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.