Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Jihad Brigades

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 redirect‎ to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. The most decisive argument is that the organization, insofar as it exists, has no notability outside of the article in which it is already treated. Significant coverage of the organization itself has yet to be demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Jihad Brigades

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage outside of news reports on a 2006 kidnapping, which itself has a pretty dubious WP:SUSTAINED case. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In hindsight, I suppose a redirect to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping would be just as valid and potentially more useful than deletion here.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:THREE notability is not temporary, subject made international news, [1], [2], [3]. Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: So the kidnapping itself has coverage at 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping - the question is more if any of the sources about that cover Holy Jihad Brigades itself as an organization above and beyond just trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Would you consider reconsidering based on the WP:ORGCRIT failings here? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There are not multiple reliable sources establishing notability. So this unambiguously fails WP:ORGCRIT. As a matter of fact there is only one source in this article, which is WP:1E and from 20 years ago. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple BBC articles on this incident. Meets SIGCOV. WP:NTEMP. Jack4576 (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the one incident, which has its own page: 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. That's why it's a bit of a WP:1E-type issue. None of the sources really discuss the organization itself in-depth, per WP:CORPDEPTH, only trivially re: the event. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of that page. Withdrawing Keep vote. Jack4576 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad possibly - might have been an idea to include that link in the opening comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organisation is known only for this incident and therefore all coverage on this page is a duplication of the coverage at 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. In reality, as is often the case where a previously-unknown terrorist organisation comes to light, it appears to have been a front organisation (in this case for the Army of Islam) and therefore likely doesn't exist. Coverage in the references appears to be of the incident, not of the organisation. Indeed the organisation is only mentioned in passing in these articles meaning it lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this, this, this, this, this, and this. Enough sources available to meet the notability criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all one sentence mentions. These are all the very definition of trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - these are all passing mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately there is a significant question-mark over whether this group even exists - there was only ever this one incident (which we already have an article about), and the US claims it was just a front for another organisation (which we already have an article about). That makes this article a potential WP:V-fail. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's a name so generic that it could easily have been a mistranslation or translation error that simply got replicated across sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, throw in WP:NOTNEWS as well: we're getting on 20 years from when the last ever known event that this potentially-non-existent group was ever linked to occurred, and there's no long-term coverage. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TimothyBlue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. No notability outside this context. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.