Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Disregarding the walls of text.  Sandstein  12:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Every source makes only trivial/passing mention, and all of them cite or otherwise quote/point back to Kanan Makiya's 1989 book "Republic of Fear" which itself only has a couple trivial alleged details in a bibliographical note for a citation concerning something else entirely, oddly. Having looked for other sources not on the article already, they have the same issue too. This is Circular reporting and it would appear that deliberately or not, the sources were placed on the article in a manner to make it seem like there was independent sources and analysis and good coverage when this was not the case which doesn't help with reliability. In effect, there's only one original source that itself is trivial in detail on the Wiki article subject and questionable at best in reliability. Further, in his book's introduction Makiya admits to use rumors and stories without "firmer basis in fact". In reality, there isn't analysis in any of the sources. This leads to WP:NBOOK, which it fails to meet the book notability criteria as well. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:REDFLAG violations may have relevance here.

As a note on Wikipedia policy and something important to keep in mind, a book passingly or trivially mentioning something is not coverage, nevermind significant coverage. For example, one source only states the title and author name as a chapter subtitle, which provides no value. Furthermore, a source simply repeating a detail that an original source it cites mentioned, as is the case here with the sources pointing to Makiya's book on this Wikipedia article, adds no additional value.

While the above policy failures are evident this article shouldn't have been made in the first place (my guess is 2006 English Wikipedia was more of a Wild West), there's also the quandary that it has been a futile effort to prove this pamphlet ever existed in the first place. Even book sellers and universities in Iraq turned up empty on ever having heard of such a work despite the alleged claim of it having been "widely circulated" and part of the country's education system.

For a detailed analysis, please see the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews,_and_Flies#Unreliable_sourcing,_circular_reporting,_and_a_wiki_article_that_should_not_have_been_created It's a lot of text but the research and work that preceded this AfD were substantial per WP:BEFORE.

I'd also vouch for the Arabic Wikipedia article of this to be deleted too since it's essentially a direct translation of an older revision of this English Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure if that requires a separate AfD or not. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Somewhere between no sources and bad sources, as explained above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nom on all counts.— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It is laughable that these circlejerk citations have been going on for 12 years now. DesertPanther (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is quite notable. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how it is quite notable? DesertPanther (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It is covered in numerous books. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the detailed analysis in the talk page at all? These "numerious books" all got their stuff from one source, sometimes they copied the text verbatim. DesertPanther (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, it is not "covered" in numerous sources. Rather, it is barely mentioned. Naming a title and author and maybe one or two other minuscule details is not "coverage". Furthermore, all sources derive from one original source as explained in the opening post and in detail in the Talk page, and even that original source, which originated this whole thing in the first place, barely mentions anything but a few details in a bibliographical note regarding a completely separate topic, oddly. The article fails to meet reliable source criteria, fails to meet book notability criteria, and as concerningly likely never even existed in the first place. How does a thing we can't even confirm ever existed in the first place deserve a Wikipedia article, nevermind failing to meet various policies? My first suggestion would be to read the opening post and the Talk page sections, as it is evident you had not. Secondly, I'd suggest to brush up on how to source on Wikipedia. A casual and trivial mention of something is not reliable nor adds any value. Something like, "Sir Elton John, a singer and serial killer, had a concert..." is not a reliable source that Elton John is a serial killer. On top of that, it's nonexistent that he is one, too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTINHERITED, and nom by . This is a classic synthesis: sources talk about apple and pie, but not apple pie. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Synth is not a terribly convincing argument. This is not a case of apple and pie. Also no indication of hoax or unreliable circular sourcing. High quality scholar reliable sources, experts in the field, talk about Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet. For instance scholars from Newcastle University and Kuwait University:


 * Cheers, Infinity Knight (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW this is Adib-Moghaddam, 2007, scholar in Oxford University, the primary scholar source MAJID KHOSRAVINIK & NADIA SARKHOH had quoted. I see no indication of Republic of Fear. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kanan Makiya, Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq is mentioned in that article twice. It is listed as a reference as well, and indeed the article contains many things mentioned in that book. Nice try though! — DesertPanther (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you are incorrect. The 2017 article only mentions the title and author as you quoted, which is useless and fails any criteria as described in the nomination and the linked Talk section, and cites Adib-Moghaddam. To make things worse, I looked at the Adib-Moghaddam article does the exact same thing by just mentioning the title and author: "pamphlets such as Khairallah Talfah’s, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies" and nothing more. Also, Kanan Makiya's book "Republic of Fear" is in the references at the end, so there is absolutely an indication of it. It is evident you are having trouble understanding how sourcing works on Wikipedia, or correctly reading and searching sources. A passing mention of nothing more than a title and author, and worse on something that cannot even be proven to have existed in the first place, is a bad source. A title/author tells us nothing. Also there is notability criteria for books on Wikipedia, and if millions of real and actual books aren't suitable for Wikipedia, then a few page pamphlet that fails all policy criteria certainly won't be. At this point it appears to be grasping at straws to make a point that isn't there. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, Saucysalsa30. Wikipedia content should be based on verifiable reliable secondary sources and not on editors original research. We have an abundance of scholar sources from great universities around the world, which talk about the Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet. You speculate the pamphlet might never existed, also marked the page as a hoax. Can you quote a reliable source, rather than your personal research, that casts a doubt on the existence of this pamphlet? Infinity Knight (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern, but to reiterate, it would be helpful to review Wikipedia policy. The article already fails to meet book notability criteria WP:NBOOK. Full stop. Further, it fails to meet WP:RS since every source makes trivial mention with no coverage of any meaningful value, and even worse all sources point back to a single original source "Republic of Fear" that itself admits includes "rumours and stories" with "no firmer basis in fact". Meaningful coverage of the subject of an article is important, of which there is no such thing. The inherent issue is it doesn't matter if some journals or books made an off-hand mention to a title/author, and maybe one of the couple other miniscule details claimed in "Republic of Fear". The fact of the matter is they all do nothing more than trivial mention, or at most add in one to two other details from the few claimed in "Republic of Fear". That's called innocuous filler taken at face value and thrown in. It happens to some degree in every book and paper every written. None of them cover the subject in any way that adds any meaning or value. They all hardly make any mention and provide nothing more than "Republic of Fear" does, while simultaneously citing "Republic of Fear", expectedly.


 * The WP:RS and WP:NBOOK failures alone nullify any reason for this article to still be up. There has been absolutely no other original claim in over 30 years. All we have is a book that itself admits to being one of "rumours and stories" making an off-hand claim in a bibliographical note regarding something entirely different.


 * Can you explain why every single source finds its way back to "Republic of Fear"? Why hasn't there been anything new added on the Flies pamphlet in the 31 years since "Republic of Fear" was published?


 * I already disproved your claim about the Adib-Moghaddam article. You said there was no indication of "Republic of Fear", and yet there were multiple. It also added no value at all. It simply stated the title and author of the manuscript. Can you explain how just mentioning a title and author is reason for a Wikipedia article to exist? You do understand that's not how Wikipedia works, right?


 * Furthermore, can you find a source that discusses the manuscript in any meaningful way? No, because that doesn't exist. The only thing you've displayed for example off-hand mention the alleged title and author, and like all other sources, points back to "Republic of Fear" as well.


 * ____


 * As for the question shifting the goalposts to existence or not (it should be reiterated this is beyond the scope of clear reasons why the article should be deleted and is an aside), I've seen far more "proof" for the existence of Bigfoot and leprechauns or the Hindu god Shiva (or any religious deity) than I have for this, and no proof to disprove it, because simply put, you can't disprove something that wasn't proven to exist in the first place. Once you understand that, you'll see the point made in your last comment is futile. What you're asking is to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, essentially. However, the responsibility falls on you to prove it does exist. To counter your point, there has been zero research to prove it does exist in the first place. There is not a single reliable or any source that does that. Just makes a trivial mention citing "Republic of Fear" and nothing else. So can you show me the evidence, proof, and research, maybe even link me a PDF or seller's link of this alleged manuscript? I can very easily prove to you that The Chronicles of Narnia books exist as I currently have it in front of me, so why do you struggle to find me anything more than a mention of the title and author in a worthless passing mention in a paper?


 * For something claimed to be so "widely circulated" in Iraq and by extension presumably the broader Arab world, it's awfully difficult to prove any existence of such a thing. :) By the extremity of the claim made regarding its proliferation, you'd expect US soldiers to have found boxes filled with the manuscript and available in every Iraqi school following the 2003 invasion. Instead, it seems to have completely vanished from all historical record and originates with a book that admits itself to be of "rumours and stories". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so why is it so difficult to produce any evidence to prove the existence of this manuscript but an article stating a title/author and referencing the origination of what appears to be as much a fairy tale as the widely-covered and "supported" claim that Iraq was behind 9/11?


 * At this point, the one contribution you have made to the AfD discussion is an either disingenuous or mistaken claim about the Adib-Moghaddam article that was handily proven false, and only proving the point I made in my omination further and which other commenters have noted. Thank you, and take care. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have not looked into Republic of Fear previously, and I am not familiar with the author. However, looking now at this source:  the book appears to be secondary, heavily referenced scholar text published by an excellent university publishing house. According to google scholar this book is cited by 406 scholar sources. So far all those are indications of a high quality WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:RS trusted by the scientific community. Why should Wikipedia distrust this source? Can you quote reliable sources which disagree with this book? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The book cannot be used as a reliable source, because it admitted by itself that it is unreliable. Here is what the author wrote in the preface of the book on page 25:
 * ″Every writer on post-1968 Iraq has to work with severely inadequate information originating in an obsessive official attitude towards “national security.” In choosing to focus on institutions like the secret police and the politics of fear, this book inevitably suffers from this liability more than others. My way around the problem has been to make explicit every source, and not to discard a story or a circulating rumour merely because it has no firmer basis in fact. A feature of Ba‘thist Iraq is that sometimes the truth content of a particular story is less important than the fact that people have come to believe that it is true.″
 * How can any reputable *academic* or *scholar*, in the last 3 decades or so, quote or cite this book and pretend that it is reliable is beyond me. What is also beyond me is your desperate defense against removing this article. I can only assume that you have an agenda that you are trying to push here.
 * Not only your side discussion is irrelevant to this AfD, but also every point you mentioned has already been covered. You also lied about the 2007 article you mentioned not citing Republic of Fear, while in fact it mentioned it twice. Also, you did not answer why there is no other details brought up about these supposed pamphlets (such as photographs or copies) in the past few decades? All we have about it are the parroted words of K. Makiya regurgitated countless times by other cheap authors. — DesertPanther (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI, whether or not this pamphlet exists is not the point of the nomination, and you're not making a point for why it does anyways. It's just the frosting on the cake that there's literally no evidence for its existence. To make it clear, you're basically discussing a tangent that is not pertinent to the AfD. Secondly, your own admission you don't know about this subject is evidence you did not read the nomination nor the linked Talk page section because I explain this in detail and already looked into "Republic of Fear" and everything else for you. If you had read the nomination and Talk page section, you would not be stating any of this. Also, the fact you were already proven wrong about your claim regarding the 2007 article you posted yet continue to try to argue in favor of that is confusing. Thirdly, your comments are going around in circles now. All of this has already been explained multiple times. As already stated several times, "Republic of Fear" itself admits it is not reliable, as has already been quoted to you from the book itself. It was written as a political propaganda piece and Kanan Makiya is proud of that fact himself, so it should come as no surprise why it's a poor source (among other unquestionable reasons why the article has no belonging on Wikipedia). Again, as stated multiple times already, that book which is the only actual source for the AfD subject, has only a few details mentioned in a note for a completely different thing and as such not a topic of focus or anything else in the book. Just a random aside not even in the book's main text. What is clear is you need to brush up on how sourcing and notability on Wikipedia works, you don't understand the clear Wikipedia policy on Book notability, and believe that being proven wrong on your only claim (the 2007 article), going in circles, and admitting to not understanding the subject you're speaking on is making a point.


 * As one example straight from Wikipedia policy, " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". There is no significant coverage here. Why is it so difficult to understand that a small note at the end of abook, and the only original source (because every other source that mentions the pamphlet does nothing more than quote and cite Makiya with trivial mention, adding no new content at all), is not "significant coverage" and worse derives from one source, which even worse admits itself to be filled with "rumours and stories"? And yet again, your argument falls apart.


 * I hate to sound like a broken record, but again, a trivial passing mention of something is not meaningful coverage. "Republic of Fear" has no focus or detail on this pamphlet. For example, Makiya several pages discussing another book (and a real one at that), but this pamphlet is only mentioned in a note on a reference at the end of the book, and the citation is for something completely different. The fact the ONLY proof for something is an off-hand mention with a couple valueless details is an obvious red flag. The only point you've made is some article listed a title and author. How does that in any way warrant a Wikipedia article or even other content? And again, it very clearly fails WP:NBOOK. There's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia content about this should exist.


 * And, you ignored my questions in my last comment, which makes it further evident they cannot be answered. If you could answer them, you'd actually have an argument for keeping this article, but considering that is not the case, it is further proof why the case you're making holds no water. Can you answer them? I understand you only made real point which had the consequence of proving me right, and it was in making a false and disproven claim. So I will ask you them again. Can you explain how just mentioning a title and author as in the 2007 article you linked earlier is reason for a Wikipedia article to exist? You understand that's not how Wikipedia works, right? Can you explain why every single source finds its way back to "Republic of Fear"? Why hasn't there been anything new discussion or coverage the Flies pamphlet in the 31 years since "Republic of Fear" was published? Can you find a source that discusses the pamphlet in any meaningful way, and why does every source do nothing but add a passing mention of zero value? By meaningful, like actually focuses on and provides meaningful detail beyond the small remark put in an out-of-context note at the end of the book?


 * If you cannot answer these questions, then there's no use for you to respond with more circular arguments and tangents. For at least fourth time time, I advise taking some time to review how sourcing and notability works on Wikipedia. A trivial coverage of something and singular source of information at that is essentially worthless, among other things. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

, looks like you agree that academics and scholars treat the book as reliable. And so should Wikipedia, per WP:RS. There were also several editions of this book, and University of California Press continue publishing about Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet after about a decade of review. Personal opinions of editors about the sources are really irrelevant. While like Saucysalsa30 you believe the existence of this pamphlet is doubtful or hoax, we still need reliable sources to agree with you. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay boomer. — DesertPanther (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Shall we salt this page after deletion? The page may be recreated due to the amount of sources citing this pamphlet as existing. Techie3 (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I think salting is a good course of action to take. How do we go about doing it?
 * Two clarifications: 1) the issue with regards to this AfD isn't primarily that the pamphlet exists or not, but rather that it simply fails to meet book notability criteria, reliable/question source, NPOV/WP:UNDUE, verifiability, and other guidelines+policies. That there's no evidence or confirmation it exists is just yet another reason why it should not have a Wikipedia article, nor mentioned on other Wikipedia articles (as it still currently is) 2) The sources don't cite the pamphlet as existing, but simply point to Makiya's Republic of Fear with a passing mention of the title/author and maybe one of the other 2 minuscule details from that end-of-book note in Republic of Fear. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (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.