Talk:Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Deletation
User:Sabahudin9 proposed the deletation of the article on 1 April 2015, claiming that the article "fails to meet notability criteria". I'd like him to make a more detailed explanation.

According to the WP:Notability, the article must meet the general notability guideline.


 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.


 * I believe this criteria is met.


 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.


 * I believe this criteria is met.


 * "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.


 * I believe this criteria is met.


 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.


 * I believe this criteria is met.


 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * I believe this criteria is met.

--Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

- User:Sabahudin9, consensus will hardly be reached if I'm the only one discussing. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree the topic, itself, is certainly notable. I am concerned however that the article is quite biased, seeming to accept the dark paranoid fantasies of dark paranoid US counter-intelligence analysts at face value.
 * Consider the Algerian Six. The dark paranoid US counter-intelligence establishment squandered over $100 million to keep these men locked up in Guantanamo, based on the foundationless dark paranoid fantasy that the men constituted a sleeper cell who planned to bomb the US embassy to Bosnia.
 * Consider that over a dozen Guantanamo captives had their continued detention in Guantanamo justified, at least in part, by the accusation that their names were on the "list of Bosnian mujahideen".
 * So, was there a grain of truth to this list? Yeah, a tiny one.  Some foreigners did volunteer to travel to Bosnia to fight beside Bosnian secessionists, because they were muslims who believed observant muslims should volunteer to help fellow muslims who were being attacked.  After Bosnia acheived independence it offered to waive the citizen application fee to any immigrant who had volunteered to help during the war.
 * Just one of those men seems to have actually volunteered, Tariq el Sawah.
 * When the other men were asked to answer this allegation, during their OARDEC hearings, all but one of them said they were mystified. They acknowledged that they had applied for Bosnian citizenship, but they all said they applied after Bosnia acheived independence.  They described themselves as liberal muslims, who felt out of place in the conservative muslims nations they were born in, who wanted to live in a muslim community in a nice liberal European country.  Most of them said that the exit and entry stamps on their passport would confirm they never traveled to Bosnia until after it achieved independence.
 * One guys story was similar, except he knew exactly how he got on this list.
 * Like many countries, there was complicated paper-work required to apply for citizenship. So he hired an immigration consultant, who he trusted to manage that paperwork, and pay his application fee.  He learned that his consultant was a crook.  His consultant forged an affadavit in his name, claiming he had been one of the foreign volunteers, and thus claiming he was entitled to have his application fee waived.  Apparently the Bosnian ministry of immigration routinely rubber-stamped these fee-waivers, when they came from someone with an Arabic name.
 * The incompetent members of the US counter-terrorism establishment apparently never realized that the size of the Bosnian ministry of immigration's list of foreign fighters who asked for citizenship was so large because a large number of applications from wannabe citizens were requesting fee exemptions, who were lovers, not fighters, peaceful, liberal muslims who wanted to fit into a progressive, liberal European country.
 * This article can't republish the dark paranoid fantasies, at face value, without violating WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrefed content
All content must be firmly rooted in reliable sources (see: WP:RS but also see: WP:ONUS), especially when it comes to content with exceptional claims (see: WP:REDFLAG) in an article with a controversial topic like this one (see: Creating controversial content Controversial subjects WP:CONTROVERSY, otherwise it will be removed per WP:USI in WP:REMOVAL ౪ Santa ౪  99°  12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)