Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wire (JTF-GTMO)

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire (JTF-GTMO)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUB IQinn (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow some time for concerns to be addressed. The rules on self publication are largely written to avoid conflicts of interest and/or misrepresentation of Notability and Verifiability from primary sources. There's a clear procedural consensus that official government publications are an exception. More often than not government publications on a particular subject are the primary or even only source available on the topic. This is especially true regarding legal and military events. As for the GNG portion of the nomination criteria it's important to keep in mind both the above and that, as a military publication, it is more often cited than talked about. At the same time I'm not going to argue that interested editors need to begin to seek out additional independent coverage should they wish to build a sustainable and relevant article. As it stands now though I'd say that as a clearly verifiable publication with an eight year history in a high profile area with severely limited public access is deserving of a stay of execution. It would behoove interested editors to keep in mind though that the complaints about GNG are legit and need to be fixed in the near future. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a view on your contributions to Wikipedia shows that you are heavily involved in United States military articles and you might have more information than i have. I do not know any policy or consensus on Wikipedia that makes exceptions for military publications like The Wire (JTF-GTMO) regarding WP:SELFPUB or WP:GNG. Could you please point me to this policies or discussions.

Regarding WP:SELFPUB: It 100% fails WP:SELFPUB as the article is based primarily (entirely) on self published sources.

Regarding WP:GNG that the article fails you say (correct me if i am wrong). The article fails WP:GNG but you are confident that this could be addressed in the future. I disagree and i think we could make this claim for any article that fails WP:GNG. Not everything that comes from the military is notable. Under WP:GNG a topic should have "Significant coverage" in secondary sources. I doubt that this is the case here and will be in the future. You and other editors are welcome to point us to such sources or add these sources to the article. I for my part have intensely searched for any secondary sources that address the subject (The Wire (JTF-GTMO) directly in detail, and could not find them. IQinn (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia articles currently cite approximately a dozen articles from this publication. I believe the publication is an WP:RS, not self-published, as nominator asserts. I suggest that when wikipedia articles cite references from a publication this is a sufficient justification for having an article about it. Readers who look at our articles' references are entitled to read neutral balanced coverage of those publication -- to aid them in forming their own opinion in order to form their own conclusions of their credibility. Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT WP:VER#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves -- isn't this aimed at the personal web-pages of individuals, and of the 99% of amateur bloggers who aren't experts? Isn't it inappropriate to level this challenge at a publication with an editor, and writers and photographers, who produce the publication because it is their job? Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the citations in Wikipedia have been created by the same author who has written the article (The Wire (JTF-GTMO). Please understand WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUB. It requires a topic should have Significant coverage in secondary sources and Wikipedia does not count as secondary source. I respect your personal opinion but the fact is that no secondary source has published about the (The Wire (JTF-GTMO) so that it fails WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUB and i do not see the reason why we should make an exception because of the personal opinion of one editor who likes to use this propaganda publication to verify the tons of propaganda article that he has written about Guantanamo related topics. IQinn (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while referencing is an issue, I don't think it warrants deletion in this case. I think we can consider the publication an RS, and since the article doesn't make any dubious claims, I don't think that there is any urgency to get remove it. A quick Google search does yeild some results, so I'd recommend using the time to improve the article rather than push for it's deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your past contribution to Wikipedia shows that you are heavily involved in US military articles and you may have information i do not have. Could you please post a link to the results of your Google search that would show some secondary sources that address the subject (The Wire (JTF-GTMO) directly in detail and would be suitable to include in the article? My search still does not show any of such sources so i would be curious to see these sources that you claim exist. Thank you IQinn (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I added 3 outside sources to the first sentence. Took a whole 5 minutes! Instead of all this wasted time going back and forth, maybe somebody could have, oh, done a Google News Archives, Scholar, or Books search? DCico (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the work but let me point out some concerns. The references you just added do not address the subject directly in detail. I do not see that these references are sufficient under WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail and that this is more than a trivial mention. The quality of these referemces concern me. What do they say about the subject? Could you please explain what this fictional mystery/thriller novel that you have added as a reference say about The Wire (JTF-GTMO) the subject of our article? IQinn (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The novel indicates that The Wire is a sufficiently remarkable feature of Guantanamo to be included in a fictionalized account of life there by a major publisher. On a sidenote, the inclusion of actual excerpts from The Wire implies that its contents are part of the grain of life there or are at least indicative, in some way, of a state of mind there. To settle any additional concerns about the source, I have moved the citation to a new paragraph at the bottom noting the newspaper's inclusion in fiction.

Could you take 10 minutes to help dig up a couple more sources? Thanks. DCico (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain where this fictional mystery/thriller novel that you have added as a reference mention the "The Wire (JTF-GTMO) magazine" and where does it say that the magazine has played any role in the Thriller or writing of the triller? I do not see this claims as verified and i just had a close look at it. Please provide us at least with a few sentence quote where you see this as verified.

I have already dug more that 10 minutes and other editors did the same. The fact that we do not find lots of references shows that this subject does not have "Significant coverage" what is required to achieve notability under WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite link itself goes to Google Books with the references to The Wire newspaper highlighted. However, I went ahead and copied the sentences referencing The Wire into the article talk page and then removed the request quote tag. DCico (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 more cites added. Research refresher, maybe? DCico (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the hard work! There might be still some problems with a few of the references that have been added but considering the large improvement that have been made since nomination and the strong support for this topic from other editors i have no objection when an administrator goes ahead and closes this nomination as keep. IQinn (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (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.