Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American ISIS fighter


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

American ISIS fighter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is NOT a news paper. This article relies on speculation and does not even identify the individual in question. The notability of this individual cannot be assessed by anonymous sources or speculation. CommotioCerebri (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  12:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Changing to Weak Keep  Bobherry   Talk   Edits  13:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note -- First, this nomination shows all the signs of a bad faith nomination. Nominator recently started this wiki-id, after editing largely or entirely using anonymous IP addresses. They started this wiki-id after I explained something to an IP contributor.  They said I hurt their feelings, and since then almost all the edits they have made, using this wki-id are reversion of edits I made, comments on my contributions, and five nominations to delete articles I started.  The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact, and their behavior has established that these nominations for deletion are not motivated by a desire to improve the wikipedia, but rather is a serious violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND.
 * Keep -- Of course, knowing this individual's name is desirable. And we should know it as soon as the Center for Constitutional Rights files a writ of habeas corpus on him.  But not knowing an individual's name, or not knowing their real name, has never been a bar on creating an article on someone. We have an article on False Geber, an important figure in the history of Science, the first person to record the technique for isolating Sulfuric Acid -- even though we not only don't know his name, we don't even know his nationality, religion, occupation.  He did something significant, notable, that authoritative reliable sources commented on.  If the Unabomber was still anonymous, still at large, who would question having an article on Unabomber?
 * claims the article relies on anonymous sources. In fact I quoted several authoritative, reliable sources who were notable enough they had wikipedia articles of their own: Karen J. Greenberg, Spencer Ackerman, Matthew Waxman.  The Pentagon official who was the spokesman in this matter, is a Major in the Marines.  He hadn't been the spokesman of any other incidents I had followed, soI didn't bother including his name.  This does not make him an "anonymous source", for all conventional interpretations of the term "anonymous source".  Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I've been critical of some of Geo Swan's articles on related topics over the years, but this is clearly a highly notable topic. The recent capture of this person has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources, and it can be reasonably assumed that this will continue. I'd note that an alternative to a straight deletion here (if the discussion goes that way) would be to merge and redirect to Foreign fighters in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars or similar. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep While the AfD might have been spared and notability more clear two-three weeks from hence - this individual is clearly notable. And will doubtlessly notable for standalone (unless after being named it will be someone with a wiki article, in which case we will have a merge). Holding as enemy combatant vs. treason charge is also an interesting legal quandary. Ample sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A future upmerge or similar might also be in order if the legal case is more significant than the individual or it turns out that there are multiple such individuals and they're not individually notable per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E, but the current tile and scope seems fine for now. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.