Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-hearing hearings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No-hearing hearings

No-hearing hearings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The report is non notable in and of itself, as it only garners 863 hits on Google, many of which are Wiki mirrors and therefore does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Information in the article also exist nearly verbatim in several other articles. Suggest a Merge with the Mark P. Denbeaux article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep -- This is an important article, widely cited. Geo Swan 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment — Several of the nominator's crticisms are issues that properly belong on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}.
    • Comment — This is, IMO, a malformed nomination, and, as such, it should be withdrawn.
    • Comment — The last time I looked this article fully complied with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. I think it is a mistake to argue that material that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER should be removed because it does not comply with some individuals perception of what is and isn't notable. Notability, in my experience, is a highly subjective and unreliable yardstick.
widely cited? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as this seems to essentially be a POV fork of Combat Status Review Tribunals or a related article. I am unconvinced that this report -- and the article is about the report, not any hearings -- is itself notable. It is a critique of the process that should properly be treated as a source for an article, not as a notable topic in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please explain how this article is a POV-fork. What POV are you asserting is being forked here? Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at Combatant Status Review Tribunal recently? It is already quite long. Long enough that it is time to consider splitting it, not merging in further, related articles. Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The Denbeauxs are charlatans but they're notable in the "anti-war" camp. It doesn't belong in the CSRT article because their reports require too much clarification that would clutter up that article. I could see there being one big Denbeaux studies article but I think it's better to have several short ones. -- Randy2063 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have great trouble accepting this as a neutral nomination. It is sourced, absolutely notable (the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!) and as such there is no reason to delete. However, certain editors consider any article that is vaguely critical of the Bush administration by defrinition POV. Maybe nominator has other thoughts than simply keeping up the encyclopeadic nature of WP. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, a quick recap of the notability of the No Hearings Hearings, and the sources used to validate this statement.
NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.
FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.
That leaves us with two sources directly mentioning, that coupled with the scarcity of hits on Google, and the fact that this report is not found in Google Scholarly Article search, means that this aint notable enough for its own article, and should be merged elsewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, your concerns about the footnotes is one you should have raised on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}. You are misusing the {{afd}} fora.
  • A note to other readers, the two footnotes that Mr or Ms Tortuous Devastating Cudgel is objecting to are footnotes to the caption of the image of the trailer where the Tribunals were held.
  • I dispute that adding a picture of the trailer where the hearings were held violates WP:SYN or WP:NOR. Agreed? If so, then this objection really boils down to a concern over that caption.
    • I didn't add the picture, or caption, to this particular article. But I added this picture, with a different caption, to another article, prior to the publication of the study. I was challenged to cite references that backed up that the captive spent the hearing bound hand and foot. I found some. I suspect that someone cut and pasted the image and caption I used, edited the caption, but kept the references.
    • I am going to repeat that your objection to this article, based on these two references, seems to me to be a serious misuse of wikipolicies. And I strongly recommend you review them.
    • FWIW, the study itself documents that shackling, hand and foot:

      "Each CSRT took place in a small room. Armed guards brought the detainee, shackled hand and foot, to the room, seated him in a chair against the wall and chained his shackled legs to the floor."

  • Cheers Geo Swan 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And of course we have had no response to the fact WaPo and Village Voice documented the report. One would think it is difficult to be not notable when discussed in main stream publications. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you a response to that. It wasn't an actual WaPo reporter, and the Village Voice columnist can't be taken seriously. There are only a few liberal commentators parroting spin. They clearly bought the misleading "92%" number as well as the bogus bounty hunters line without giving it a close look. There is no serious nonpartisan analysis for these reports.
-- Randy2063 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Very weak Delete on the basis of the evidence so far. There is no question whatsoever that the hearings are notable. This article, however, is about the book. Let's look at the refs: Some are about the topic, some are written by the same group, but it looks the the 3rd and 5th are mainly about the book. The NYT article is not. The second VV one mentions the book down at the bottom. where are some books reviews? The tendency to get as many articles as possible for one very notable topic does not make sense. DGG 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment How many articles are there? What topic do you mean? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no provisions in Wikpedia's notability guidelines that require a certain number of G-hits. What it does say is "The number [of secondary sources] needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." MoodyGroove 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • Response Maybe the logic behind this nomination may be more apparent when you realise nominator has gone to several articles I edit (why has he forgotten this article?) and is massively deleting adequately sourced information there also. For some reason it always results in removing uncomfortable, yet sourced, information about the Bush administration. Coincidence is really an interesting topic. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book itself is POV, so there will always be some difficulty in keeping the article about it NPOV, but that's a matter of how the article is written, not whether it should exist. JamesMLane t c 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Other WP:RS that mentioned or make available this NN report: US Senate Commitee on Armed Services(report!!), HRW, CCR. To insist on lack of notability is proof of inadequate knowledge of who cites it, insufficient grasp of policy or more sinister motives. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Per all arguments above, and by subject matter of book. I hardly see how it isn't notable G1ggy! Review me! 23:26, 4 June 2007 (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.