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  no consensus. Like LadyofShalott, my impression after reviewing this discussion and the article, was that there were possible original research by synthesis concerns, but I have registered that she too has landed on the "keep"-side which has a reasonably clear majority in the discussion. Looking at the article, it appears that the specific facts in the article appear to be sufficiently backed up by the footnote references. The main concern is whether there has been a general concern about islamist militancy in Uyghur guest houses; rather than just unrelated concerns on specific, unrelated, guest houses. It is not all that easy for me to render judgement on that question since I don't have access to the sources, and I must therefore let the voice of the community control here, and in this discussion at least, I cannot see that the community has reached any consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Attack page that has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The same author has created similar pages targeting the Uighur ethnic group and that were recently deleted. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_2#Uyghur_guest_house.2C_Jalalabad, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_2#Uighur_guest_house.2C_Pakistan IQinn (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

• Keep -- The wikipedia is not a hagiography. Contrary to the speedy deletion justification our nomator offered, that this article "specifically target[s] the Uyghur ethnic group", it references and reports, using a neutral point of view what WP:RS which single out specific Uyghur guest houses as suspicious had to say. Nominator and I have had numerous discussions. I have found that when they challenge material as "misleading" they don't seem to distinguish between wikipedians lapsing from the neutral point of view, and contributing material that doesn't neutrally report what WP:RS say, and neutral reporting of WP:RS where, in their personal opinion, they consider the original WP:RS to be misleading. This is a serious mistake. When an article neutrally reports what WP:RS say it should not be described as misleading, without regard to whether individual wikipedians regard the WP:RS as misleading. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand WP:RS is only one of our core policies and this policy has often been often misused as justification for people who are WP:GAMEing the system. Sure all WP:RS but it has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV to an extend where it should be speedy deleted because it is just unencyclopedic. IQinn (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't fully understand this reply. We have many policies, including deletion policies. As I understand it, the merits of covering the topic is what matters. Accepting, for the sake of argument, that your unexplained WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns hold merit -- a weak current version of an article on a topic that is worth covering is a solvable problem. A perception of biased passages in an article on a notable topic is a solvable problem. A perception that passages in an article on a notable topic contains original research is also a solvable problem. Perceptions of these kinds of concerns are supposed to be addressed on the article's talk page. I welcome you offering civil, meaningful, substantial explanations of your concerns -- on the talk page.

WRT your WP:Unencyclopedic concern. This not a policy, it is a redirect to a section of the essay WP:Arguments to avoid. It is a cautionary note of an argument the essay's author(s) consider frequently misused in deletion discussions; problematic; circular; one that should be avoided. Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know i am not a fan of WP:Wikilawyering what is a form of WP:GAMEing the system.

I always prefer to fix article rather than deleting them but i highly doubt that this is possible here as there are quite a lot of fundamental problems that even touches BLP issues and violate a few core policies. Let's start with WP:OR WP:SYNTH a fundamental problem that you well know. You have ask another user about this issue and i am going to post his/her answer to the issue of WP:SYNTH, i think it may be a good start to discuss this topic:

...It looks to me like this article takes a number of individual incidents and ties them together with the thesis that Uyghur guesthouses (in general) are suspected of ties to Islamic militancy. I do not see that any RS has already discussed this phenomenon as a whole. Perhaps it has; if you can show that there is some book or magazine article, or whatever good source, that has discussed this as a gernaral phenomenon linking different occurences of it, then I'll withdraw my concern.

Can you please show some RS as requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this looks like it may violate WP:SYNTH. LadyofShalott 15:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The lack of articles from "mainstream" media is somewhat troubling. Also, the selection of refs that are used appear to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV .Nomen Nescio talk 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Responding to a question on my talk page I think some clarification is warranted. First, pointing out the lack of MSM does not mean I believe they are more reliable than the smaller ones. It does, however, reflect the notability of the report. If the MSM fail to report certain stories one has to wonder: why? Second, I find the sources used are not entirely randomly chosen. Which, to me, constitutes a red flag.Nomen Nescio (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT confirmation bias / non-random choice, if you are concerned that I cherry-picked references, excluding WP:RS that described Uyghur guest houses that were not suspected of ties to militancy, please take my word that I have not. All the references to Uyghur guest houses I could find describe them as tied to militancy. Are there Uyghur guest houses that aren't suspected of militancy? Maybe, but there don't seem to be any WP:RS that cover them. Anyhow, they would be off-topic, since the title of this article confines it to those Uyghur guest houses that are suspected of ties to militancy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article notes that the US Executive branch chose to no longer defend the allegations it had offered for its justification for holding the Uyghurs, (which included the stays in Uyghur guest houses), when the SCOTUS ruled captives were, after all, entitled to challenge those allegations through habeas corpus. It is probably fair to assert the USA dropped its allegations in late 2008. I would like to find an RS that specifically says the USA dropped its allegation that a stay in a Uyghur guest house was justification for continued detention. I can't find one. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. This will be short, as am under time pressure, but will likely augment it later. I already commented on a similar deletion effort elsewhere. Somewhat silly. Perhaps someone's idea of sport. First, there is no BLP issue here. Second, even with BLPs, we have perfectly lovely articles such as FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. No problem with those. This is just the "house" version. As much as I sympathise with "houses", I think the interests of the project are best served by not deleting these. Can't imagine a good non-POV reason to delete. Nor, incidentally, is it synth. Though there is a not uncommon misunderstanding that leads one to consider that. Synth is when Source a says A, and Source b says B, and you combine them to state conclusion C. Here, only A and B are stated. Which is of course what we do all the time -- it's classic combinging sources to write an article. Without saying anything more than what the sources say. That, I see, is what the editors of this article have adhered to quite carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you see that there is already an ongoing discussion about WP:SYN? Could you please address these concerns in detail.

...It looks to me like this article takes a number of individual incidents and ties them together with the thesis that Uyghur guesthouses (in general) are suspected of ties to Islamic militancy. I do not see that any RS has already discussed this phenomenon as a whole. Perhaps it has; if you can show that there is some book or magazine article, or whatever good source, that has discussed this as a gernaral phenomenon linking different occurences of it, then I'll withdraw my concern.

Do you know any RS as necessary and requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this point directly in my prior edit. BTW -- why are you copying over the comment multiple times on the same page? It makes it difficult to discern whether you are making a new point. And is confusing, as they are not party to this AfD it was not clear, by looking at the edit, whose edit it was. Posting it the second time serves to needlessly fill up the page with repetition.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am - it is my comment from my talk page that has been quoted twice now. LadyofShalott 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply here, thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all will notice that I specifically refrained from saying either keep or delete previously. I am not completely convinced that there is no synthesis here, but it is marginal if at all - especially in light of the comments that Geo Swan has made on my talk page. I think the article could be improved to make clear the extent of what RS have said, but in the balance, I think it should be kept. LadyofShalott 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient sources and a notable topic. I'm glad it was possible to work out a suitable article title for this material. It seems a little pointy to keep emphasizing other people's questions elsewhere; an answer has been given, but whether it is sufficient to satisfy people is up to them individually, and one person here should not act as an umpire of the discussion. This is not SYN, but presentations of sourced material. Editing intrinsically consists of selecting sources and content. Readers then draw their own conclusions. The sources are appropriate for the subject. WP:RS is just a guideline for the application of WP:V, which is a very general but very important policy--what sources are enough to meet it is always a fit matter for discussion, but we are neither limited nor prescriptive. this has been explained; whether it is detailed enough to satisfy anyone is up to them. There is no conceivable way this defames a racial group--any racial groups will have people involved in various ways in Afghanistan,and whether or not one regards any particular person as a hero or a villain is a matter of perspective. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:OR and WP:SYN. The topic as such is not notable (the title is simply weird), and could be well integrated into existing articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We measure notability by coverage in RS sources. Given that, how do you deem it not notable? Also, I'm not sure how what you view as a weird title relates to whether it is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of NOR or NPOV are not grounds for deletion. I will welcome your explanation of what portions of the article you consider lapses from NOR or NPOV -- on the talk page. Please feel free to suggest an alternate title there too. Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Optionally, a merge to Uyghur people#Current Events might be possible if the sourced material was sufficiently condensed. SnottyWong talk 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per nom? Are you agreeing the article is an attack page? An allegation no-one here has defended? The other elements of the nomination are counter to the deletion policy. As I noted above a perception of NOR or NPOV in an article that is on a topic that is otherwise are supposed to be addressed through discussion -- not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 18 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.