Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unit 400 of Iran's al-Quds Force


 * 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   speedy delete. G5'd The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unit 400 of Iran's al-Quds Force

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article on an alleged organization engaged in state terrorism, sourced only to a single sensationalist news report from March of this year, citing allegations from anonymous intelligence sources. These claims seem to have not been taken up by any other serious news outlet. Can't find any other coverage of the story. Nevertheless, the existence of this organization is being claimed as a fact in our article. This would fall under "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it certainly fails that criterion.

Procedural note: it has been clearly established that the creator of the article has subsequently been socking massively, and most of the accounts involved in writing this article have been socks. What's not quite clear at present is whether the initial sockmaster was himself a sock of another long-banned user (see Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055), and hence already violating a ban at the time he first created this. If that connection is confirmed, the article will be G5'd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. The single reference claims to have received all his information from "Several international intelligence sources" who are never identified. A Google search of Unit 400 al-Quds Force returns only this story and mirrors of this article. If this was an actual special forces/intelligence unit (or a credible rumour of such a unit), I'd expect to see lots of follow-up reporting from other media outlets as well as papers from academics who specialise on Middle Eastern security issues. As such I don't think that WP:V or WP:N is met here. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with both reasonings given before me, lack of sources for redflag statements, article created and edited mostly by an abusive editor with a very clear agenda. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 11:01, 5 July 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.