Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister X (prisoner)


 * 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) Mediran  talk to me! 09:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mister X (prisoner)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Basically everything in this article is hearsay and there are no substantial sources. It looks more like an urban legend that is being presented as fact.Zuchinni one (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From the Talk Page: Half of the sources here are referenced to Richard Silverstein's Tikkun-Olam blog -- an unreliable, self-published source not acceptable for Wikipedia. They must be removed.  Zuchinni one (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested action: Do not delete, instead remove the deletion nomination and admonish the nominator. The above statement that half the sources are referenced to Richard Silverstein's blog is flatly untrue. The articles attribute the existence of Mr. X unnamed government officials. The fact that the government sought an emergency gag order when Mr. X's existence was disclosed seems to confirm his existence. It's does not read as an urban legend when six credible journalistic outlets have confirmed his existence with government officials. Instead, this reads as an attempt to censor information pursuant to some government interest. Normally I would not ask, but one wonders as to ZucchiniOne's interest in deleting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.30.15 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Every single bit of the information in all of the major newspapers came originally from Silverstein's blog. The "government officials" mentioned all come via him.  I've linked to it below so you can see for yourself.  Zuchinni one (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I second that. There are at least 4 credible news-sources describing the claims brought forth in this article, adding to the validity of it.


 * Don't delete There's news sources for it, from respectable newspaper like the Telegraph, Spiegel etc. If it's an hoax those newspaper haven't published corrections as of yet. Also, who the hell admonish someone for proposing that a (maybe at the time?) badly sourced article be deleted, come on guys. I vote for it to stay P.S. I'm not using my account because of how sensitive anything related is, but please take my vote into account70.30.27.170 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like this article to remain. I'd like to know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.65.51 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Every one of the news sources references an article that does not exist. There is zero evidence for this person ever even existing. If this article remains it should be rewritten in the same style as articles for Bigfoot, UFOs, and the Loch Ness monster. Mostly I just don't think that such a poorly sources rumor should exist in article form on Wikipedia. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For anyone wondering ... here is the original "Source" of Mr. X: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2010/12/11/mr-x-imprisoned-in-israel-is-iranian-abducted-by-mossad/  Zuchinni one (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this AfD is a transparently obvious attempt to stop public discussion of this issue – which coincidentally just got a lot of eyeballs and clicks today via reddit.com due to being posted there. (This AfD possibly may also be an attempt to remove specifically this recently added information from the public eye.) 31.18.251.194 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I like to think that Wikipedia is not a platform for verbal political sword-fghting, and as it stands, this article is just a poorly-referenced stub with a lot of allegations. There is only one affirmed source, where the secondary sources have all parroted the first. The fact that the only reference is a personal blog on which any conspiracy theorist can put forward any of his ramblings doesn't help in achieving and/or maintaining WP's standards in verifiability and neutrality. DELETE and go fight political battles elsewhere. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Mfhulskemper (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Okay, the Reddit frontpage link and the touchy subject made this AfD a bit of a mess. Let's steer away from the political heat and let's stick to the editorial facts. This has been reported in multiple reliable sources, thus it is notable per WP:GNG. As such, the article should be kept. That there is no evidence for the person existing is irrelevant: what is relevant is that the rumour has been reported by sources. Merging to Ali-Reza Asgari is not an option because it is unknown (even if probable, if we believe the sources) that the prisoner is Asgari. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The main reason it should be deleted is that it does NOT meet the WP:GNG guidelines for notability. Everything basically originated in one blog post which was referenced by several news agencies.  Zuchinni one (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's the "referenced by several news agencies" part that complies with GNG. What do the news agencies use as their own sources, in turn, is not our business. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And so a possibly made-up statement can be parroted by several sources -- who possibly accept it without any level of verification -- and then it becomes verifiable according to WP's guidelines? Although you deleted my statement calling for stopping political involvement here (yet you say the same in here, which I find... funny), I'm still for DELETE due to essentially having no reputable originating sources. I'm sorry.Mfhulskemper (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't delete anything regarding "stopping political involvement": I deleted only your uncivil personal attacks, as anyone can see by checking the history. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep.  If the subject exists, he's notable and our readers, myself included, want to learn more.   If you need better sources, find better sources.   I know the gag order may make it harder than usual to judge source quality, but if you think about it, the mere existence of a unusual gag order demonstrates that this subject is noteworthy and needs to be covered by NPOV media like us.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the way things work. If there aren't reliable sources are job isn't to decide that things are notable, and we don't go and include articles on things just because we personally feel they should be important. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that I personally feel it's important-- what do I know about these events? I come to this article blind.  Rather, it's RSes like The Telegraph that confer notability.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * keep The Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald articles are both enough to meet the general notability criterion. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion about deletion seems to be dominated by Zuchinni. I am a Jew and I would like to see this Wikipedia entry concerning prisoner X refined and elucidated upon. I see no reason to delete it before the facts about this story are known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBillyKidd (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — DrBillyKidd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep I agree with JoshuaZ. רדיומן (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So I've been thinking about this and here are the facts as far as I can tell:
 * Basically the phenomenon of Prisoner X was started by the alleged brief appearance of a news article which subsequently vanished.
 * This was posted by a blogger Richard Silverstein Here. It was this blog post which was picked up by several major news organizations (so perhaps this does indeed fit the bill for Notablility ... I'm not sure)
 * All attempts to verify anything, even the existence of this person have been unsuccessful
 * There is a claim that an Israeli governmental official mentioned a gag order ... but that cannot be verified either.


 * So here is what I'm thinking ... if this article fits the bill for Notability ... then it should stay. However it needs to be clear in the article that basically nothing can be substantiated and the sources for the claims need to be very clear.


 * However keeping this article as if it was definitive and factual would be a disservice to wikipedia
 * Zuchinni one (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Zuchinni, I agree it should be reported as something unclear. As for notability, yes, the point is not the blog itself, but the fact it's been picked up by multiple news organizations. That's what confers notability. However, given that your problems with the article seem to be easily solved by editing, and thus not needing deletion, and given your last post, do you withdraw your nom? -- Cycl o pia talk  11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I want to withdraw the proposal for deletion right away. I guess where I'm concerned is that currently seems to be a minor urban legend ... at least in my view.  And I wonder that if it remains on wikipedia will that be something that adds to the legend.  On the other hand it HAS appeared in some larger media outlets, albeit only briefly, and so perhaps it is already part of the collective consciousness and thus should remain.  I think I'd rather leave it up to the wikipedia admins, but there do seem to be some legitimate reasons to keep it, as well as some good reasons to delete.  Zuchinni one (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This has substantial third-party sources which are credible. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG Delete . Seems like there was a call to save the article with keep opinions rather than improvement. The sourcing does not seem adequite when you examine the sources individually.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to elaborate? Especially for the "strong" part. Oh, by the way, regardless: articles are not supposed to be saved by "improvement": what is relevant for keeping or deleting is that the subject is notable, not the quality of the article. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have changed my opinion due to the new sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Israeli news story has disappeared but the NBC story is still accessible, and unless I'm mistaken it appears to be independent of the blog. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom this is a different story entirely and does not mention the prisoner X legend. The only connection is that some people have speculated that if a prisoner X exists it might be the person mentioned here.  Zuchinni one (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A cursory read of the articles shows zuchchine Inez's claims that a blog is the source to be false. Time to admonish him. I haven't seen any if those credible journalistic sources confirm the existence of ufo's, Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. the deletion suggestion is bizarre, the claims backing the suggestion lacking in merit, and the end result, if taken, censorious. If there is a concern about confirmation, the article can be written in NPOV. Delete is overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.30.15 (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest you do more than a cursory reading. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An in-depth reading of the article shows that the claims that a blog is the main source to be false. In addition, the blog you posted above from which you claim all the news stories originated is dated December 2010 while the news stories referenced in the article are from June 2010. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Struck out above. The blog links to an earlier post in June 2010. However, the newspaper articles quote other sources other than those in the blog and reports on the "uproar" that the incident caused in Israel. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are three legitimate news sources currently referenced. Every single one of them refers to the Y-net aka Yehidot Ahronoth news article.  This article no longer exists and has been distributed by bloggers purporting that what they are blogging is the original article.
 * For example: From 'The National': "According to the report in Yediot Ahronot, which was distributed by various blogs before disappearing"
 * The ONLY source for what is supposedly the original Y-Net article is via blogs.
 * So ... we have an entire article that rests reports from news agencies, which are based upon the claims of a blog post, which is claiming to have replicated an article that no longer exists.
 * Please be a bit more careful before you accuse people of lying. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * While the news stories do mention the reactions and speculations of various blogs, they do not quote any blog as the source of their information about the disappeared news story, nor is noting that various blogs have posted screen shots of the original Yediot Ahronot story an attribution. Your quote from The National attributes the information directly to the original article, so apparently it was noted by more reporters than Richard Silverstein, et al. They also quote Dan Yakir, chief legal counsel for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and The Telegraph quotes an unnamed “Israeli security expert”, neither of which are mentioned in Silverstien's original blog about Mr. X, so your claim that all of the information originated from his blog is unsupportable.
 * Please be more careful in your reading, both the material we are discussing and the comments of other editors. Nobody has accused anybody of lying. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote from Dan Yakir has nothing to do with substance of who Prisoner X is or if he exists ... it is his reaction to the rumors. Same goes for the "unnamed security expert", who simply suggested that anything going on might be more related to espionage than terrorism.  But once again did not mention X at all.  The bottom line is still that the only original source for any of this no longer exists.
 * However in regards to Cyclopia's comment below, he is correct. The issue of whether or not to keep an article is notability.  I still think that there are legitimate reasons for keeping and deleting.  But I also wonder if this might not be better off merged with another article that discusses one-off press phenomena.  For example, if a newspaper in New Jersey published a piece about a UFO sighting ... which was later taken down, but still got picked up by other larger news agencies because a blog had kept the original article ... where would that belong on wikipedia?  Would it deserve its own page, or be part of something larger?  Maybe it could be added as a conspiracy section of this article Israel_Prison_Service or a similarly related article? Zuchinni one (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to point out that all this discussion about where the news took their info from is irrelevant. News sources are secondary sources: their job is to report stuff from a plethora of primary sources. Blogs, personal communication, interviews, whatever. The point is not how robust or weak is their primary source, for our notability purposes: the point is that secondary sources decided "hey, this is notable enough for us to report". -- Cycl o pia talk  10:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (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.