Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (2nd nomination)


 * 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not quite enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Fand training camp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG IQinn (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Background -- As those who follow thse topics know several teams of scholars have published multiple analyses of the memos used to justify the continued detention of the Guantanamo captives. Scholars at the Combatting Terrorism Center at the USAMA at West Point, lead by Colonel Joseph Felter, wrote:
 * that they found that 181 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified by the allegation that they were associated with independent training camps in Afghanistan, or Pakistan's tribal areas.
 * that there had been on the order of 100 independent training camps in the region.
 * they published a bar chart of the eleven most attended camps. They also listed 27 other camps.
 * the 9-11 Commission's report singled out several camps that trained the 9-11 hijackers.
 * I started most of the articles on the training camps we know about from the allegations against Guantanamo captives. Lots of other references have emerged for some of the camps.  For others I haven't seen other references.
 * I don't own these articles. I do think that piecemeal nominations for deletion of individual articles is a bad approach.  I suspect practically everyone would agree that camps the 9-11 commissions report described as the camps that trained the 9-11 hijackers merit separate articles.  I suspect practically everyone would agree that the camps where Iraqi WMD trainers were alleged to have trained al Qaeda recruits how to use chemical and biological weapons merit separate articles.  I suspect most people would agree that the eleven camps in the West Point chart merit separate articles.  Which of the other 27 camps listed by Felter merit separate articles?
 * I don't own these articles. And I won't pretend to know what the community would conclude, if all these articles were the subject of a central discussion.  I have got to say I have been extremely frustrated, puzzled and disappointed by the flat refusals of User:Iqinn, our nominator, to engage in any central discussions of common issues on the articles we are both editing.
 * The contributor who nominated this article for deletion has taken the position that the memos that contain the allegations against the Guantanamo captives are "primary sources". I strongly disagree.  In 2004 the United States Supreme Court ordered the executive branch to institute a review process, where the captives could (1) learn; (2) have a chance to try to refute; the allegations that were being relied upon to keep them in detention.  In response, the DoD created a brand new agency, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants.  The officials in this new agency who authored these memos called upon (sometimes conflicting) reports from half a dozen other agencies.  They had the responsibility to understand and interpret the reports written by other agencies.  They had the responsibility to collate the information from the reports from these other agencies, evaluate their credibility, and cast out non-credible or superceded allegations.  They had the responsibility to determine which allegations were duplicates and cast them out.  They had the responsibility to reconcile allegatins from the other agencies that conflicted with one another.  The authors of these memos had to do all these things in the course of preparing these memos.  These are the canonical distinguishing characteristics of a secondary source.  And I continue to believe these memos are solidly secondary sources.  `Geo Swan (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * mirror


 * Keep Newsworthy and useful. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you please explain Newsworthy. There is simply no "significant coverage" and therefore the article fails WP:GNG. You may address this argument and you may have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. IQinn (talk) 06:16, 7 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.