Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate Mall Attack Controversy

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. The only editor who did not !vote delete seems to concur with the conclusion that it is WP:OR ("This edit is an amalgamation"). This is inappropriate for Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Mall Attack Controversy[edit]

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

Full of original research. Majority of refs come from YouTube, Scribd and Photobucket. Alot of one or two sentence statements with nothing to tie them together. Doesn't make sense. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree here, due to the unencyclopedic style and use of sourcing. I'm not even sure what the key point of the controversy is. There were some confusing media reports during the incident, but this is entirely normal for a breaking news story. It is not in doubt that the attack took place and that around 70 people died.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is conceivable that something like this could be an article, but this could never be it. NOTNEWS, OR, poor writing, unreliable primary sources, etc. etc. Delete. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what the controversy is, but it looks like the creator is trying to manufacture it. Agree that some of this material could be used in the attack article, but this doesn't really work. Too much original research and synthesis. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are all kinds of problems, esp. with the police/military response; that's been in the news plenty, and I assume that is already in the main article. "Controversy" is of course just a buzzword. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, borne on the back of a litany of unreliable sources, giving undue weight to an alternative version of events that is, broadly, a conspiracy theory. Pick any two arguments for deletion from that description. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete beyond being an WP:OR conspiracy theory, its pretty incomprehensible. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. textbook example. it belongs on a private blog, not on WP.Cramyourspam (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a host of text & information without a clear point being made. Agreed with the original research as well. ///EuroCarGT 21:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HI - All links and citatations are to previously published, public information. Sites such as photobucket or scribd host clips, images, of unchanged, previously published, public information. - Thank you ESPEEarrow (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Start by citing the original sources then. Until then, it's just no. And if those links go to copies of copyrighted publications, they might well be copyright violations. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original reseach. It is an encyclopedic (perhaps not to the proper specific format) compilation of all (as much) public information that has come out about the regarded sections. The Westgate attack was shrilled with controversy. No mainstream media outlet has summarized the entirety of the topics addressesed in the edit in a particular single report (though some in single reports have covered various topics indluded in edit); but no single piece of evidence or citation linked in the edit has not already come out, been published, or broadcast. Every citation is attributed to a mainstream media outlet, official report, or public information; all of which can be already be found online. All primary source files cited and linked-to;as well as clips and freeze-frames of already published information. Other sections or Wikipedia articles such as biographies cull information from multiple sources; again, perhaps not in appropriate format, but in that regard this is the same. The last main edit on the Westgate shopping mall attack page, about media coverage, doesn't have any citation, and inaccurately describes Terror at the Mall as a BBC documentary, though it was aired first by H.B.O. on September 15th. ESPEEarrow (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unencyclopedic POV fork of Westgate shopping mall attack. Cherry-picked details strung together in classic WP:SYNTHESIS manner to allege a controversy where (as far as I can see) none exists. I hate to see Wikipedia have an article supporting this kind of nonsense, even for a week. Is it possible to SPEEDY or SNOW close this? --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi No images are edited. No clips are publicized or broadcast under a different name other than the original publisher. Each and every single link is true, fully true; but furthermore, un-tampered with and pure. Nothing is changed. It is what it is. Each fact is what each fact is. Each link is each link. It can be clicked on and seen and seen right there. The H.B.O. show stated itself as simply as it could the last footage of attackers is on the evening of September 21st. The Kenyan government itself has clearly stated the attackers were killed on September 23rd; and had been fighting them continuously until then. It is a fact that the Kenyan government says shooting between the military and police inside the mall never occured. It is a fact that we see reported evidence of it in the form of multiple photograpsh of a police officer being carried out of the mall. What exactly is more direct than direct? Cherry-picked details? Its a text edit of 200k with 876 links/cites. Public information, obviously wrapped to particular format, should always be able to find sanctuary on Wikipedia.ESPEEarrow (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting it. The article is a string of statements, strung together. The obvious purpose of collecting all these carefully selected facts is to reach or imply a conclusion - in this case, the conclusion that there is controversy over what happened. That type of approach is not allowed here. Please read WP:SYNTH; that is what you are doing. Until we have reliable sources SAYING that there is doubt or controversy about what happened, we cannot have an article here that leads to that conclusion, much less says it in the title. I'm sure there are websites where your carefully constructed approach will be welcome. But Wikipedia is not one of those sites. BTW I hope you kept a copy of all this, because it could be deleted at any time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi' Wikipedia articles are strewn with controversy (or otherwise titled) sections. Of course there is controversy. Yes, the edit is not trying to slip that through with implication or innuendo. That has been reported on widely in mainstream media repeatedly. Every link is to something that was already previously published - and virtually always in the context of it being controversial -- All of the cctv footage; everything.

On Wikipedia there are controversy sections in biographies; discographies; entries regarding single events. As for this edit, you can find a mainstream news report about each and every sub-section of this edit. You could find multiple reports from a single outlet on multiple subjects of the edit, and you can find single reports regarding multiple subjects of the edit.

I'm not trying to say anything about the format/style. It's a lot of information. There are a lot of words. Help would be great. But also there are a lot of complete sentences. It is mostly in the list of cctv footage in which there is dense lack of full sentences. But I'm not even in a position to say anything about the format/style. I'm not trying to argue about that.

But never, anywhere, does it say in a single sentence - and particularly one that is not attributed to an other party - anything about a general conclusion regarding the attack. And all is cited; not only collectively in paragraphs but throughout statements. When it says ' here is a picture of an attacker doing x ' there is then a link to an image or clip from a media house that already published a report on it of that attacker doing x, and the name or title of the outlet often visible. In regards to the video clips, most of the video clips even have the narrative overlay from the original media broadcast!

I'm not trying to say anything about the format/style. But as for the other half - and very fundamental - tenant the argument for … not fixing, but Deleting.. this edit leans on, its baseless. It must say a lot about the style, because it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the rigor and standard applied to citation of public already-published reportage. I don't understand - and I mean this genuinely - what specifically about the content of this information renders it worth being deleted; immediately deleted, or not worth the ilk of Wikipedia, as opposed to being worth cleaning up. A 9/11 conspiracy theory page is worth cleaning up…but not about a terrorist attack in Kenya?

This is an edit about the controversy regarding the Westgate attack. It's not an edit claiming to be an edit about the attack. Or baseball. It's an edit about the controversies regarding the attack - -ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED ON - and reported on WITHIN THE CONTEXT of being controversy.

The purpose of collecting and organizing ANY information is to give a body of work. A shape. That's what the composition or sentence-by-sentence writing of information is. I don't think any sentence in the world can escape that. What is unfair is for those sentences or words to explicitly state or conclude things that cannot in that summation be attributed. I'm not trying to pretend its not an edit about controversies regarding the attack, but the sentences also don't try to do more than they as single sentences do. They are beholden to their own selves and don't speak for other facts or statements. It is what it is, it's a lot of controversy; obviously it has a shape. Yes, what the entry does is spell out as many instances as it can regarding various topics of controversy surrounding the attack. Which have been reported many times. I am not here to say that the language is perfect; or that it's not problematic (if everybody is saying so; I don't doubt that). But the language also does not take leaps attribution does not go, and it is not explicitly in any way stating a general thesis about what happened during the attack; a conclusion to the controversy, or anything like that. – If there are problems in those terms with sentences or passages it's not like I oppose that being changed. -- Furthermore, everything is cited and attributed. All the videos, from youtube, or photobucket, or wherever, are all rather clearly the clips from broadcasts that - in many of the instances - were published on Youtube or other sites by the media company itself. Maybe the logos aren't clear in the corner of the videos, but that's all the original footage. Other places there are still images and clean clips (not merged together) of the original broadcasts. Absolutely nothing has been changed. And absolutely have the previous broadcasters/publishers of the reports published them in the context of controversy. Of which this edit has catalogued...

RE: this sentence - "Until we have reliable sources SAYING that there is doubt or controversy about what happened, we cannot have an article here that…." - THEY ALL HAVE - CNN; Al-Jazeera; The Guardian; Sky News; New York Times; Christian Science Monitor; HBO; AP; Reuters; BBC… ALL OF THEM have written/reported about various aspects of controversy regarding the attack; and reported so within the context of controversy. You can find a mainstream news article/report about every single sub-section included in the edit. And multiples. Kenyan media reported widely on looting; duration of the attack; and whether attackers escaped. Al-jazeera widely covered disparate statements between Kenyan gov and Al Shabab, as well as discrepancies in numbers of missing people. HBO covered the initial security response.

When Kenyan media publishes leaked surveillance footage from inside the mall of soldiers looting the grocery store; and then the chief of Kenyan police threatens to arrest journalists covering the attack, and then the international media reports on it as a subject of controversy; that's a subject of controversy. When the New York Police Department publishes a report alleging the terrorists likely escaped on the first night; and then the FBI fires back alleging the terrorists were killed on the third day; and the State Dept. distances itself from NYPD; and New York Magazine writes about all of it as an issue of controversy; its an issue of controversy! Everyone has reported on issues of controversy regarding the Westgate attack,and again, virtually always within the context of it being controversial.

The edit is not trying to be anything it's not. And yes - its an edit about controversy. So its going to be about the controversies. It is absolutely one million percent back-able; already published; cited; and cited by big great reliable sources, like every single major media house that reported on the attack. This edit is an amalgamation. Some of the original reports were broadcasts and of course you can view any and all of them, and see how they clearly and in their own words explicitly talk about controversies regarding the attack. The work is too energy-consuming to sully or saturate with inuendo or implication. It's an entire edit about controversy. Its not trying to trick anyone, or unfairly change the direction of a narrative. There is no attempt to try to imply that controversy occurred. It is stating that there have been many reports of controversy regarding the attack, and goes into the various subjects, linking back to original reportage. Controversy surrounding the attack has been extremely and widely covered. There is absolutely nothing controversial about that. Again, I'm not trying to speak of format/style.

Again, It's not like I oppose sentences/passages/issues/problems being addressed/changed/fixed/cleaned, etc. ESPEEarrow (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious original research/conspiracy theory. If anyone wants to go through the sources and see if there's anything the main article hasn't used, more power to them but nuke this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The main article is quite enough. Agree this is original research. There is no encyclopedic style, not sourced and no need to spend time in attempt to repair. Not needed. Fylbecatulous talk 11:42, 7 October 2014 (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.