Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Intelligence Summit (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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Intelligence Summit

The Intelligence Summit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted before for lack of notability and then I deleted a repost as WP:CSD#G4, but another editor opined that it should go to discussion, so I'm bringing it here instead. I've restored all revisions. I favor deletion based on the notability concerns brought up in the first debate. If nothing else, notability isn't established. Chaser - T 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP: This isn't the old, undeleted stub article; it's an entirely new article with sufficient notable references. There were also at least two other Wikipedia articles which, prior to the 12th, had "oranged out" links to the deleted page, so there's arguably sufficient external interest. IMO, the only reason the original article was deleted was because its page-creator never got around to developing it beyond a stub, and nobody else was willing to do the reasearch either. Well, I have done so.--Mike18xx 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's becoming quite clear we are getting a different result than the first discussion. Sorry for the initial speedy deletion, Mike. And, thanks to PMAnderson for arguing against the speedy.--Chaser - T 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Mild Keep Media coverage established in this version; the list of speakers in the previous version is itself fairly respectable. (I observe that the "non-partisan" objected to in the previous version has gone; but do remember, Commodore, that "non-partisan" is not "neutral"). John A. Shaw should be merged here; its present condition is this article turned inside out. It may well be that there is substantial criticism of this organization as a bunch of cranks; but the solution to that is to find and include it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shaw's page shouldn't be merged; he is a notable government personna beyond the forum in which he elected to "go public" with his WMD allegations.--Mike18xx 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be deleted until it contains something beyond his speech here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If a notable personna uses a organization forum to make a statement, and the organization is then covered by notable entities which discuss aspects of the organization independant of the personna's speech, then the organization itself becomes notable.--Mike18xx 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec; what I agree with is "has notability") Please do observe that I agree with you; I did support keeping. But since this article looks to be kept, we don't need two paragraphs of it there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated (into the article) The New York Sun piece (provided by Proabivouac below) regarding the (apparently forced) resignations of Deutch and Woolsey from the Summit; it predates the conference with Shaw's speech.--Mike18xx 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve.--Edtropolis 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems reasonably N from the article as it now appears.DGG 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep In a very brief search, I had no problem from finding reasonably mainstream news stories about this organization;[1],[2] no doubt there are more.Proabivouac 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The new version seems to address most (if not all) of the objections raised in the previous AfD. Teens! 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - The new version does not address any of the objections raised in the previous AfD other than that the previous article was a stub. It is a completely non-notable topic that should be merged with Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. The overwhelming majority of sources used do not belong on Wikipedia -- see WP:RS. csloat 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for linking your blog on your user-page; that was quite entertaining.--Mike18xx 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per csloat. Eusebeus 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It has plenty of mainstream sources and has generated at least one major news story. It's not a conspiracy group but a bona fide security discussion group. I really don't see what the problem is here. Nick mallory 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The only mainstream sources to mention this conference seem to come from a few days in 2006 and all of the notability is generated by the outrageous and demonstrably false comments of Mr. Shaw along with rash speculation (that also turned out to be totally false) about the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. Hence my point that this conference is a footnote to those articles. Not every terrorism conference should have an article, even if this one did generate controversy for a few days. Nobody would suggest articles on far more notable conferences on terrorism such as this one in 2004 (which had some actual terrorism experts like Robert Pape at it, unlike the Summit) or this one in Saudi Arabia (attended by numerous security officials and experts worldwide), or just about any of these, or this one at West Point, or this one in Tokyo, or this one in Israel.... Arguably all of the linked ones are more important than the "Intelligence Summit" to anyone who works in counterterrorism or any academic who studies it, but the Summit gets attention here because of the tiny bit of controversy - a couple days' worth at best - generated by some patently false but overhyped claims by the discredited Mr. Shaw. And certainly this conference in Iran was far more controversial in every way than the Intelligence Summit, yet the Iran conference did not merit its own page. csloat 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So Tawfik Hamid isn't an "actual terrorism expert" despite having been an actual terrorist?--Mike18xx 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see he has given some lectures, but what peer-reviewed research has he published? You're nitpicking, of course - perhaps this guy can be considered an "expert" but the fact is that the Summit is nowhere near as notable as some of the other conferences I mentioned. csloat 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Give it up, Sloat; I caught you with your pants down, and we both know it.--Mike18xx 18:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, you haven't answered my argument at all. There is no need for ridiculous personal attacks on my pants (or on my blog). I'll ask you to please cease. The reason I think this should be deleted is that it is not encyclopedic. It is not personal, and I'm sorry you're taking it that way. I don't even know you. csloat 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to argue that Tawfik Hamid isn't an actual terrorism expert despite having been an actual terrorist is duly noted. If you earnestly care about the unencyclopedic entries at Wikipedia, I suggest you submit an AfD for that putrid rot State terrorism by the United States. You know the one.--Mike18xx 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, what peer-reviewed research has your friend Mr. Hamid contributed to the scholarly literature on terrorism? Your assertion that he's an expert simply by virtue of being a terrorist is not in any way supported. And calling a totally unrelated article names is non sequitur. csloat 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tawfik Hamid has first-hand experience; the others don't.--Mike18xx 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the other page - So does Ayman al-Zawahiri; I'm not interested in his opinion either. The issue at hand was notability as a scholarly expert. Nobody would disagree that Pape has it and what's-his-name doesn't. I think we're done here. csloat 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's really your argument, then all I need to do is point out that Tawfik Hamid is notable. After all, he has a Wikipedia page. But enough of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam logical-fallacy.--Mike18xx 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)--Mike18xx 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • So write some; and if somebody has demonstrated Shaw to be full of it, quote them here and in his article. Wikipedia is full of quite notable articles about people who are demonstrably lying their body part off. Consider George Psalmanazar and Cyrus Teed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • To heck with them; consider CAIR and Noam Chomsky.--Mike18xx 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Your comment speaks for itself. csloat 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes: They are both outrageous liars.--Mike18xx 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Please read WP:BLP and be careful about making libelous accusations. csloat 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry; I forgot to add "stooges for Hamas". (Not libel because it's true'.)--Mike18xx 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable, --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Keep and expand. Obviously notable. Bradybd 08:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per Csloat.Giovanni33 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A quote from your user page: "'If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.' - Noam Chomsky"--Mike18xx 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above--sefringle^Talk 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- sefringle^Talk 03:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. CNN and the St. Petersburg Times would seem to be unimpeachable sources, regardless of ones biases or criticisms against the organization in question. Alansohn 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Biophys 04:12, 18 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.