Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles (terrorist cell)


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles (terrorist cell)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This short article fails to explain why The Beatles analogy was invoked. It offers nothing beyond what is already covered in the better written and more informative article Jihadi John. The other alleged members ("George" and "Ringo") are nothing more than shadowy figures who are anonymous captors. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As you can see from my "views on Wikipedia" on my userpage I think new articles should be given more time before being nominated for deletion. This article could have been started as Draft then moved to mainspace when ready. I would suggest that the article creator move the article to Drafts:The Beatles (terrorist cell) and redirect this to Jihadi John.~Technophant (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Technophant. Move this article to the draft namespace, set this page as a redirect, and when more information is available, re-create this article from that information. At that point, it might even be prudent to merge Jihadi John into it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It is rather premature at this stage, however, it is notable. If more info becomes known(which is likely will.) this article will have to be created again. Why delete it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonsJoe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The question is whether the topic is notable.  For example, as reflected in GNG coverage.  Not whether the article itself -- in its present form (though that is now after additions debatable) reflects the notability of the subject.  A secondary question is whether the other article should be re-named to the name of this article, and the material merged. But that is a secondary question of merger.  I'm leaning to being of the view that the topic is notable, and therefore deletion via AfD would not be appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Epeefleche's comment, topic is notable and does not warrant deletion although merging might be an issue as a proper article on the subject should focus on the group's methods not just the individual (johnny jihad). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jihadi John should merge to the bio on Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary since his father had now identified him as Jihadi John in US Federal Court today as part of a plea bargain. Bowser777 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. There is no official nor legitimate registration for this group as The Beatles anywhere in the world.  This should be enough. But also, Wikipedia would be unjust to the legacy of The Beatles and to millions of people around the world who know them and love their music, including children.  Worldedixor (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This !vote has no basis in wikipedia guidelines or policies. We -- fairly obviously, I would think -- don't delete articles because the subject of the article is not "officially registered" somewhere in the world. Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Is there any WP rule that says that we all have to !vote and comment the same way in Wikipedia? If so, please tell me which one so I can reverse my !vote. Also, Jihadi John (the person not the name) is notable but what about the other "Beatles"? How are they notable? What evidence do we have that they called themselves The Beatles, and does it matter? Otherwise, who called them The Beatles and why? Just because they had British accents? I am open to logical arguments but not to dismissing my !vote for speedy deletion and my supporting comments. So, for now, I will stick to my !vote but I will respect consensus (not numbers or repeat !votes, but rather logical arguments supported by responsive answers to my reasonable questions). I will also stand up for what is right even when I am standing alone. -- Worldedixor (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COMMONNAME. It discusses the difference between commonly used names and official names.~Technophant (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I know WP:COMMONNAME, and I know the difference, but I still disagree here. Now, answer my question please! Am I obligated to reverse my !vote and comment? or are editors permitted to disagree in a civil and assertive manner, and still agree to respect consensus at the end? That was my main point! You are permitted to make your !vote and comment, but no editor should be permitted to belittle mine. right? Also, I asked reasonable questions. Please answer them with logical arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per my above comments, and those of qwerty.  If a merge is considered, it should be of the constituent element (Jihadi John) into this one. Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that Jihadi John has been merged into this article by an IP edit there's no choice but to keep it. ~Technophant (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, easily passes WP:GNG, esp. since Jihadi John's inclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy? At this point, given the above (and especially if there are one or two more !votes along these lines), I would think a speedy may well be in order. Perhaps even nom may at this point agree, given the changes to the article since the original nomination, and the above comments. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that it's been merged with Jihadi John. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. As of now, it is unmerged and The Beatles (terrorist cell) is again a poor article compared to Jihadi John. WWGB (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge, - its Undue, certainly at this point, there is nothing said about  the other two in RS that I have heard or seen -, so no need to be created at all, a sentence in  the  John article -'the three were called the beatles by their captives' - what else is there to say really - the only material unique to the article is perhaps ringo starrs comment - and  with that comment he laments this use of the name, which in its way this article promotes, in a needles way, starrs comment can be on the 'j john' article -   so I vote to merge it with the 'jihadi j' article.   Sayerslle (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jihadi John per WP:CFORK. Jihadi John and Beatles are the same thing. Sources are not sure if John is one or more persons and use Beatles and Jihadi John interchangeably. Wikipedia is confused about this. -- Green  C  14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are reading. That's not true.  As the article clearly reflects, multiple high-level RSs indicated that the Beatles are not one person, but rather multiple people.  Jihadi John is one of them.  As with the band the Beatles, we have an article on the band ... and if a member is sufficiently notable separately, also on the member. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a high level source that says Jihadi John is "one person"? Is it the same person in each video? Is there a high-level source for that? I see a lot of conjecture by the press and independent analysts, not official intelligence agencies. -- Green  C  14:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe Green Cardamom isn't questioning whether or not the cell has multiple members, but whether or not it was the same member performing the murder each time. mol  uɐɯ  15:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Jihadi John is the main focus of the references, making most of the notability for this group inherited. mol  uɐɯ  17:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merging, redirecting, splitting, etc. are conversations to be had in other fora.  The references in the article establish that the Beatles nickname is widespread; whether that name is secondary to Jihadi John, OR whether Jihadi John is secondary to the group, OR whether the two should be covered in separate articles is a conversation to be had on the article talk pages in question.  The topic seems notable enough that summary deletion is not needed.  -- Jayron  32  19:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article is a mess and is going round in circles. It is a classic WP:CONTENTFORK. Jihadi John contains all of the necessary material. Almost nothing is known about George and Ringo except that they have British accents.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect, There's really no content to this, just a rather silly nickname that deserves maybe a sentence. They aren't even a "terrorist cell", as the title claims, just some individuals among the IS fighters who happen to have English-accents (not even Scouse ones!). It's not even clear whether there are supposed to be three or four of them. It just seems that a fourth figure - a guard - had to be added to make the numbers of the Fabs. The actual sources refer to three individuals. This should be a sub-section of the Jihadi John article. Nothing more. There is no "terrorist cell". Some of the sources are also being misrepresented to present this as a defined group. The infobox for the name is sourced to this "The Beatles terrorist group". New York Post. Retrieved 12 September 2014. In fact this merely refers to a "terrorist known as 'John the Beatle'", not to a group. This article is a bloated one liner, created only because some editors love the journalistic concept of killer Beatles. Paul B (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of your assertions are at odds with RS sources that appear as refs in the article. There is content. Supported by many RSs. Many RSs refer to this as a distinct group within IS -- not as you assert some random disconnected individuals who share only accents.  The articles differ as to whether there are three or four of them, but that's fine; as always, we simply report the difference in RS reporting. Much of the article is about what the group does. Some is about individuals; and while John is the lead character here, there is also RS coverage of each of the other members, in addition to the coverage of what the group as a whole does. The article reflects the RSs, not OR views of editors. Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If these RSs say that, I can't see it. There is certainly no evidence whatever presented of a "cell" in the good sources. It makes sense that English speakers would be guarding/talking to English speaking hostages (and with each other). The only information about the possibly non-existent "group" doing anything is that 'George' reads the Koran and is apparently not very bright. I see no indication whatever that the Fab Three-or-Four are acting as an independent or coherent group. Your response also does not address the central issue. This is worth no more than a throwaway sentence or two - maybe a paragraph at most. There is nothing to deserve an independent article on such feeble evidence. The principal source is footnoted separately 8 times (creating the impression that the article has more sources than it does) and is an utterly witless article in the Daily Mail, a generally deprecated source, which has a load of silly speculation about how Jihadists spent money on "£200 prostitutes" etc etc, and which mentions the Beatles label a few times . This is really the only substantial article and it's from the least respected paper, regularly a topic at WP:RSN for its lurid fantasies. Most of the sources make similar very brief passing references. This is not article-worthy. Paul B (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you can't see the content. About the group. And the other members of the group. And the RSs that refer to this as a group. It's all quite apparent I would think to anyone reading the article, and reading the many RS sources that serve as refs.  The Latin phrase is res ipsa loquitur. On the side opposite the RSs is your personal point of view. But that view is not supported by the many RS refs in the article. The coverage of the group clearly meets GNG -- even if you personally don't like it.  -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
 * Pointless Latin phrases are a resort to silliness. You still haven't responded to the central point that these are passing references, not substantive discussion, and that the principal source is from a deeply suspect journal. Paul B (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * True -- but on point Latin phrases are an effort to communicate properly. The article reflects over two dozen news articles, including 10 in which the Beatles are a focus of the title of the news article as well as the text of the article.  And what you pejoratively personally view as a "deeply suspect journal" is only one source -- there are over two dozen other sources reflected in the refs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INHERITORG. There are two notable things to which this group is linked: the beheadings themselves which are covered in detail at 2014 ISIL beheading incidents, and the manhunt for the executioner which is covered at Jihadi John. All the notable content is covered at those two article. There is no significant coverage of the group itself (as required by WP:N); all mentions are incidental to the two notable topics i.e. the beheadings and the manhunt. Some brief background info about the group can be added to Jihadi John in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, but a separate article is unnecessary and redundant. The lack of substance in the article demonstrates this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a mischaracterization. The vast majority of the article is focused on aspects relating to the Beatles other than the beheadings (that section in the article is a mere 2 sentences) and the manhunt (that section in the article is also a mere 2 sentences). Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep widely reported by news media and thus notable. DylanLacey (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep most appropriate place to describe other members of the group than Jihadi John (e.g. George, who doesn't have enough known about him to warrant a separate article). And definitely notable as per comments above. Kidburla (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge Assuming it is true this is mostly a passing item in most sources, with little but the most cursory explanation. No reason to give terrorist groups publicity because they decide to use famous people's names to promote their acts. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with WWGB. This article was originally suggested to be merged into Jihadi John, not the other way around. It was changed into the current merge tag, after this. Jihadi John alone is more notable than the cell that he belongs to. George and Ringo are not notable. Therefore, I agree that The Beatles (terrorist cell) should be deleted and Jihadi John should be kept. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to. You refer to a "current merge tag." There was no merge tag on the article at the time you wrote the post, nor since. And whether or not John is notable, the group can also be notable (as with the music group the Beatles, whether or not John Lennon is more notable). If it meets wp:GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the "current merge tag" on Jihadi John's article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per DylanLacey and Kidburla. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2014 (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.