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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Forward Intelligence Team

[edit]

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

This article is based on unsubstantiated allegations and sources that are riddled with inaccuracies. It doesn't even have the unit's name right, which should be a bad sign. It's also bordering on POV-pushing, in that it gives prominence to Public Interest Lawyers, a heavily biased organization.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not in a position to say if the sources are inaccurate. However, they are all reputable. The first reference does mention uncertainty over the unit's name, which is reflected in the first line of the article. PIL may or may not have an agenda, but I don't see how reporting their relaying allegations of the alleged victims is POV pushing. Dalliance (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article basically consists of nothing but PIL's allegations.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article implies that JFIT's full name is one of the options it lists. It's not; both are wrong.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the second paragraph in ref. 1 refers to the Joint Forward Interrogation Team. Dalliance (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it does, but there's no such unit. The same source also admits that they don't actually know what the acronym means.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the article is a complete mess. The title is based on a guess at what JFIT might stand for and the sources are a list of allegations made 4 years ago with no indication of whether they were dismissed, substantiated or ongoing. The Times articles are inaccessible to most people.--Flexdream (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I read Shiner's claims about "something called Operation Wideawake, conducted using white light" I had to laugh. Op Wideawake is conducted daily in every British military unit everywhere in the world. It has nothing to do with TQ and nothing to do with Iraq. The reason white light is used is so soldiers can see things in the dark. Comedy journalism at its finest. We should not be basing articles on speculative rubbish like this. At most this nonsense merits a paragraph in Shiner's article, if we ever create one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion had not been included in any AfD log. It has been added the the listing for 2 July 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing any genuinely secondary sources concerning the allegations, and pretty much every statement in the article seems to trace back to PIL's press statements. There are a handful of book references to the name but only one of them even begins to connect to these claims, and all of the them are in passing. Maybe there's a place elsewhere for a mention of these as allegations, but this doesn't pass any reasonable standard of verification, and at any rate it fails to say the most basic things about such a unit. Of course I would not oppose re-creation if better sources appeared. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2014 (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.