Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ahrar 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   redirect to Afghan training camp. no consensus has emerged to suggest this is sufficiently notable for a standalone article but there are suggestions that this is an area where a clear article structure hasn't emerged. I'm IARing slightly to redirect this to leave the history intact in case of a later consensus of where to use this. Spartaz Humbug! 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Ahrar training camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". All information already presented in Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea. IQinn (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As I pointed out in a comment on another similar afd
 * WP:RS state there were on the order of one hundred non-Taliban military training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, pre-9-11.
 * According to Felter et al, allegations that Guantanamo captives attended or were associated with at least thirty-eight of those camps were offered, in part, as justifications for captives continued detention, during their 2004 CSR Tribunals.
 * For some of those camps WP:RS have identified them as having trained 9-11 hijackers, or other prominent terrorist suspects. Ahmed Ressam, the millenium bomber, attended the Khalden training camp.  According to the DoD allegations, approximately one-eighth of the Guantanamo captives attended the Al Farouq training camp.  Tarnak Farms training camp was not only one of al Qaeda's advanced camps, but was subsequently the site of a notable friendly fire incident.  Derunta training camp was alleged to have been one of the camps where Iraqis trained militants on how to use Iraqi WMD.  Some of these camps are clearly exceeding notable, and merit individual articles.  Other article merit merging.  I know of no one who is arguing that they should all be kept as separate articles.
 * However, in my opinion, a series of afd nominations is a highly inappropriate way to determine which of these articles merit coverage in an individual article. Possibly it is our nominator's intention to one by one nominate each of the 27 camps not named in the bar chart.
 * Should our nominator rescind all their individual nominations, and make one mass nomination? That would be a better approach, one closer to both the spirit and the letter of our policies, however, personally I think it would be better to have a non-afd discussion, because there are complications.  I started a discussion over this issue in March -- WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I have attempted to get our nominator to engage in several centralized discussion when there were common issues shared by articles on related topics we were both working on.  In every single instance our nominator has flatly refused to engage in those central discussions.  I find their preferred alternate approach of WP:Wikihounding, of which the half dozen individual afd on individual camps they initiated yesterday are an instance, very unfortunate.
 * As I pointed out above the camps aren't all equal. Some unquestionably merit separate articles.  Others don't.  Nominations to delete multiple articles, IMO, should only be made when the articles are all clearly in the same boat -- and that is not obviously the case here.
 * The 38 camps listed in Felter et al are only a subset of all of those used to justify the continued detention of captives. OARDEC convened four additional sets of annual Administrative Review Board hearings, in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.  Those allegations were much more detailed, and added training camps not listed in the 2004 allegation memos.
 * On the other hand later sources have clarified some of the camps were referred to by multiple names, reducing the total number of known camps.
 * At least one of the eleven camps that Felter et al listed on the bar chart is not a separate camp, but is actually a sub-camp of one of the bigger camps. Another camp seems to be listed under two names on the bar chart.
 * mirror
 * Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- In several of the essentially identical concurrently running afd our nominator has made they have suggested that all of the information in the article on the camp is adequately covered in the article(s) on the captive(s) alleged to have attended the camp. I believe this suggestion is one that erodes the value of the wikipedia for readers interested in these training camps.  We don't currently have a list of all the alleged camps.  I suggest we should.  I suggest that those articles on camps we decide are not well enough documented to support a separate article should be redirected to the article that contained the list of all the camps known to-date.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like one more of your filibustering replies without addressing the given arguments or to provide clear defined new arguments. You are right some article meet criteria for inclusion some not. That's what we are here for. I am mystified why you do not addresses the given arguments i must say i find that a bit disruptive. This particular article here fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did address the content portion of your comments. (1) Some of the known camps lack sufficient documentation to merit individual articles; (2) there should be a central discussion as to which camps do or don't merit individual articles, so that the eventual results are consistent; (3) your suggestion that each of the individual articles on individual camps should be merged and redirected to the article(s) on the individual captive(s) alleged to have trained there seriously erodes the value of this material for any reader who is studying the general phenomenon that there were on the order of 100 camps in pre-9-11 Afghanistan and that on the order of 200 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified due to alleged attendance at one.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please understand this here is the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp nothing else, please stop filibustering and stop to disrupt the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp. We know you have a special interest in this topic and that you are the sole contributer who has mass created all these articles.


 * 3. No that is wrong. I did not make this suggestion. I said that all information are already presented in the article Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea.
 * 2. No need for another fillibustering central discussion. Afd's are central and the place to discuss if this topic here merits an individual article Al Ahrar training camp. Highly doubtful as this article fails WP:N WP:GNG because there is no "significant coverage".
 * 1. This is the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp. Your comment on other articles is not helpful here. So i am going to repeat my request that you address the given arguments that the article here Al Ahrar training camp fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment May I suggest to some of the editors above that the use of the word "you" in a contentious AfD generally does not help matters.  DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge into Afghan training camp. At this time, there is no indication of sufficient notability to support a stand-alone article.-- Pink Bull  01:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.