Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hizb-e-Abu Omar

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 05:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hizb-e-Abu Omar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.

Detailed analysis of available sources

The first published mention of the organization anywhere is a 2007 news article in The Daily Star.[1] It is significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. It is straight news reporting, however, not a secondary source, as the reporter does not provide any "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (the police press conference / perp walk).

The same day, the Hindustan Times references the online version of the DS article, tosses in some background information on other organizations, and generally gins up the story. For example, the original, where an arrestee confessed members used to fake their own kidnappings to extract money from their parents to fund the organization, gets spun into "those arrested confessed after interrogation that it was involved in kidnappings." It is significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. Their reinterpretation of the story arguably makes it a secondary source. However, the footnotes to the WP:GNG caution that multiple newspapers publishing the same story don't always constitute multiple works, "especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." Although HT adds information, that information isn't about the organization.

One book contains one sentence about the organization.[2] That isn't significant coverage. I suspect their source is Wikipedia, which would also make it WP:CIRCULAR.

Since the 2007 article, the organization appears regularly in newspapers, on a list of 30 or so Islamic organizations suspected by Bangladeshi authorities of involvement in militancy ("There is a strong possibility that the organisations might get involved in militant activities anytime. So, we're closely watching their activities").[3][4][5] Being mentioned on a long list is not significant coverage.

To summarize the sources visually according to WP:ORGCRIT:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The Daily Star	Y	Y	Y	N	N	No analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis by the author
Hindustan Times	Y	Y	Y	Y	?	Not intellectually independent of The Daily Star (with respect to the organization)
Book	N	Y	Y	Y	N	One sentence
Various news stories	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Brief mentions in a long list
Total qualifying sources					0-1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

No clear merge or redirect target. The Hindustan Times says it's "a breakaway of the Harkat-ul-Jihad Islam (HUJI)", but it's unclear whether that's actually true. Their source (The Daily Star) says the organization is allegedly led by a founding member of HUJI, which isn't necessarily the same as being a splinter from it. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2020 (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.