Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp

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 Casting vote: Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fand training camp

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Military bases are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that I have nominated multiple articles for deletion with the same rationale - I have not tied them together, because they are not the sort of thing that can be assessed en masse. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see now this is a series. THere's not enough information for independent articles so I would merge these together into a list of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- I started most of the articles on Afghan training camps -- over three years ago. As I was reading through the documents from the Guantanamo captives' documents I kept coming across the captives whose continued detention was justified by allegations they had attended a training camp in Afghanistan. I didn't know when I played a role in starting this series that some of the camps would turn out to be mentioned only once. Those DOD documents weren't searchable then. (The most important half of the documents are searchable now, courtesy of the NYTimes.) Some of the camps are mentioned only once. Over one hundred individuals are alleged to have attended the al Farouq training camp. Dozens of individuals are alleged to have attended Tarnak Farms, and have attended the Khalden training camp, have attended the Derunta training camp, and the "Uyghur training camp". I don't regret starting these articles. I continue to think the camps alleged to have trained many individuals merit individual articles. I think a strong argument can be made to preserve individual articles about all the camps alleged to have trained 9-11 hijackers. I think a strong argument can be made to preserve individual articles about any camp described in reports from newspapers or elsewhere. I now think other camps, with only one or two alleged attendees, and should be merged, and redirected, preserving the revision history of the redirects -- in case more references emerge. Frankly, I don't think a discussion of where the dividing line between the camps that each unquestionably merit an individual article, and those that merit redirection, belong in an {{afd}} discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge until more information becomes available on individual ones. In principle, they can each probably justify an article, but there's no point doing it with the limited available material. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2009 (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.