Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida guest house, Kabul
I find the nominations challenges to the reliability of the references illustrates a very different understanding of the wikipedia's |policy on verifiability than my own.  If a non-notable blogger makes assertions about someone -- that is unreliable.  When a government agency makes an assertion it is reliable that, at least, that this is the government agency's official position.   says we aim for what is verifiable, not what is true.  It seems to me that what our nominator is really challenging is whether the government's assertions are accurate.  Determining whether the assertions in a official government document are '''''reliable''''' is not our role.  During the last American administration some politically appointed officials were criticized for politicizing science.  They were criticized for reinterpreting the scientific conclusions of professional scientists.  The one I remember best was the re-interpretation of the professional conclusions of professional scientists, on global warming.  The documents this political appointee rewrote were widely regarded "unreliable" from a purely factual point of view.  But, IIRC, what was not in dispute was that while the appointed official lacked the expertise to reliably rewrite the conclusions of professional scientists, he did have the chart of organization authority to rewrite those documents, and that his rewrites had become the official position of those agencies.  I suggest we would then, and still would now, state that, at the time he rewrote those conclusions those were the official positions of his agency.  We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, no matter how widely doubted its factual reliability was.  We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, based on our own personal doubts over its factual reliability.  To do so would be to lapse from  and .  Suppressing neutral material over our own personal doubts over its factual reliability is, IMO, a form of editorializing
— User:Geo, 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:VER||WP:VER||WP:VER||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Verifiability)