Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida safe house, Karachi




 * 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) 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaida safe house, Karachi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

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. safe houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and more evidence needs to be provided before the inclusion of this article is acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of 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. Here I find 13 different people accused whose detention in Guantanamo Bay is justified by the United States on the basis they stayed in this waypoint house...it is no more an "indiscriminate" list than List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete unless exact location of the "guest house" is properly referenced (grin). Seriously, if it's about a house than be specific, provide address or at least GPS coords. If it's about any house in Karachi, delete. What's next, Drug Den in London or it's a one-off coattrack run?NVO (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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  17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There are currently over half a dozen active afds on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago.  While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article.  But others require their own unique article.  I think this is one of those.  In the interest of brevity I won't repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Among the different suspected safehouses/guesthouses intelligence analysts describe some very important documents were seized from raids of the Karachi house(s). Computers were seized during these raids that contained lists of names that intelligence analysts concluded were members of al Qaeda.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have coverage of those seizures that pass WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources in this article that discuss the safe house in significant detail, as WP:RS requires?   Ravenswing  02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I am sure you honestly believe this. And I honestly believe you are mistaken.  Please consider what we know about what American intelligence analysts believe about the Karachi safehouses and guesthouses from just one captive -- Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani.  His allegation memos listed almost three dozen allegations related to his management of six Karachi safe houses.  Three of his four allegation memos stated he managed these safe houses under the direction of a senior al Qaida leader.  But the earliest memo says he managed them under the direction of Khalid Shayhk Mohammed, the number three in al Qaida, believed to be the brains behind the USS Cole bombing, and the attack on 9-11.  He is alleged to have hosted seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers and five of the USS Cole bombers.  Bomb-making courses were supposed to have been held in the houses he managed.  From his memos we know one safe house he managed was a "two-story house near the Karachi, Pakistan airport in a community called, Wireless Gate." We know another was "in the Rabia City area of Karachi".  Yet another was "located at Gulshan I-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan to edit video tapes and produce video discs from the tapes."  A fourth was in the "Mehmoodabad neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan."  The one where he lived with a planner of the USS Cole bombing was "in the Defense View neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan". The one where he was captured was "at Sonia apartments on Tariq road in Karachi, Pakistan..."  We know these American analysts believe these safe houses were used to build timers for time bombs.  We know American intelligence analysts believed some of these safehouses were used to hide and nurse injured fighters.  A list can be found at Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses  Would it be better to know more about these safe houses?  Sure.  But we have articles on topics where our references supply incomplete knowledge from all fields of knowledge, like, for instance, sub-atomic and the theories about them.  You wouldn't suggest we hold off on creating articles on subatomic particles because we have unanswered questions about them, would you?  Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be completely missing the point. Again. The problem isn't that the article is incomplete; the problem is that the article fails the most basic test of inclusion. On multiple articles you and other users have been asked to prove exactly how important the articles you are touting are and have been repeatedly failing to do so, instead slipping away and replying with answers that don't actually answer the query. I indeed "honestly believe" 1) that this article fails the WP:GNG and 2) that it is required to pass it and 3) that Sherurcij's argument is on "arguments to avoid". 2 and 3 aren't opinion, they are fact, and since you've done nothing to dispute 1 I see no reason why I shouldn't keep honestly believing it. Your example with sub-atomic particle theory is a false one; I am looking for notability, not completeness. If a theory of sub-atomic particles was so unimportant that the author can't meet the incredibly high standard of two third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in some length then it's probably bullshit. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WRT to WP:GNG, it has five bulleted points: "Significant coverage"; "Reliable"; "Sources,"; "Independent of the subject"; "Presumed". I think all those criteria are satisfied.  You think they aren't.  I have tried my best to address your concerns, at a very considerable cost of my time.  So would it be possible for you to refrain from using inflammatory wording like I am "slipping away" from answering your concerns?  Would it be possible for you to be specific about how you think the the article fails to satisfy those criteria?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "significant coverage". WP:GNG requires the sources to give "significant coverage" each - you've found passing mentions of the safe house. The reason the article consists entirely of "things found in a safe house in Karachi" is because 1) that's all the information you found and 2) that is because the sources are about people who stayed at the safe house, not the safe house itself. We don't even know if they're the same house! Karachi has a population of over 18 million - they could well be different places, but because the sources aren't even about the safe house(s) we can't even verify something as basic as that. To go back to the core problem, though, there is no significant coverage, just passing mentions in various documents which have been synthesised together. This fails both our notability guidelines and guidelines on original research. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, first, you acknowledge that the other four criteria are satisfied?  Second, how much time did you spend looking at Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's allegation memos?  Twelve pages of memos.  If you strip out the redundant parts of the four memos there are still two solid pages of allegations focused around his management of these safe houses.  Karachi has a population of 18 million?  I assumed it was at least a million.  We know American intelligence analysts believed there were multiple safe houses.  We know that their interrogation records listed six houses Rabbani was associated with.  So, we don't know the exact number.  Some of those six may have been the same houses, merely described differently.  And some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with.  But I don't see how this is a significant criticism.  You dismissed my analogy with sub-atomic physics.  Nevertheless, I will remind you we can cover quarks before scientists come to agreement as to whether there are 12 kinds, or 24, or 48.  Same with string theory.  Similarly, perhaps you could explain your interpretation of Synth.  To describe something as a lapse from synth someone would have to introduce a novel confluence of ideas into article space.  Similarly, original research requires the introduction of facts or interpretations not found in our sources.  Neither of those is the case here.  Going through a bunch of references, and covering what they say, without adding an original, unreferenced interpretation is just collation -- not original research.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's original research - WP:SYNTH falls under original research. The article has taken references to "a safe house in Karachi", a city with a population of 18 million, and you've collated that into an article implying that there is a single Al-Qaeda safe house in Karachi - that's Synthesis. You've completely missed the point about quarks - we can cover quarks before scientists discover how many there are, yes. But if you want an article on the 24-quark model and there aren't at least two sources covering it in "significant detail" then it still fails. "some of the six may have been the same houses.. some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with"; speculation to back up synthesis. It is a significant criticism, since WP:GNG specifically says "'Significant coverage' means that ... no original research is needed to extract the content.". I acknowledge that the other four are fulfilled, but then I never said they weren't, and all five are required anyway. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." ; the sources do not address the subject directly (they're throwaway references when discussing something else) or in detail (they're single mentions in throwaway references while discussing something else). Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Collation is not synthesis. As I wrote above both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR address the insertion of novel and unreferenced conclusions and interpretations.  I do not believe this article contains any unreferenced conclusions or interpretations.  Faithful and neutrally written citations of multiple references, without the insertion of novel interpretations is not SYNTH.
 * You have focused on things I wrote here on these afds, and characterized them as lapses from WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. I believe you are making a mistake in doing so. Those policies bar the insertion of unreferenced personal opinion into our articles -- into article space.  In our talk pages, and in discussion fora, like afd, where we discuss how to write articles, what belongs, what is important, and what is trivial, what doesn't belong, it is both routine and necessary to discuss opinions.  Practically every single extended discussion over notability triggers the expression of unreferenced opinion.  Even if, for the sake of argument, the policies also barred the good faith offering of unreferenced opinions in good faith efforts to discuss what belongs in article space, I suggest that those lapses should not be used to argue for the deletion of articles that don't lapse from those policies.
 * You say all five criteria need to be met. And you quote WP:GNG: "no original research is needed to extract the content".  But then it seems to me yours is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the article.  Intelligence analysts have written allegations that show what they believe about the houses they characterize as Karachi safe houses.  And I believe the article faithfully and neutrally covers those allegations.  Zero original research is needed to extract that content.
 * Your interpretation of the article is that the contributors who wrote it (mainly me) were trying to imply there was a single Karachi safe house. I don't believe the article says that.  I don't believe there was a single al Qaeda safe house in Karachi.  I take at face value that this is how you read the article.  I suggest that would be an editorial issue, which I think you should have raised on the talk page.  It is not grounds for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last statement is correct, but luckily that isn't why I nominated it for deletion; it's never been a core reason, it was merely an illustration of a point. I appreciate you've taken the time to respond to almost all my points, but again you've missed the main one. WP:GNG requires five points to be met. The first is "significant coverage", taken to mean " sources address the subject directly in detail". The sources do not address the subject directly (merely giving passing mentions while discussing something else) or in detail (they simply mention the "safe house in Karachi". My point about multiple/single safe houses was an illustration of the lack of detail available). Please explain how the sources you have provided fulfil the "significant coverage" requirement. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment that I haven't shown "detailed" coverage surprises me. Back on the 25th I listed a half dozen detailed allegations, and requested you look at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani.  I am going to repeat my request you look at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani.  Please look at it, and then let me know whether you still believe that the coverage is not in detail.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dozens of teenty tiny comments are not detailed coverage. If the article was on Abdul Al-Rahim then that'd be fine, but all that adds to the article is "while staying at the safehouse, Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam a) did this, b) did that, c)...". It's the difference between a book on Perth and a book on Lord Mansfield that lists all the things he did on Perth. Technically, Perth has coverage, but it doesn't mean we can create an article that'll pass WP:GNG when it almost entirely consists of "stuff Lord Mansfield did in Perth". Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll answer this as well by repeating the answer from my talk page when you posed me the same question there: "I don't accept that they provide any detail at all beyond that they merely exist. C'mon ... you're not a rookie.  You're an experienced editor of long standing, and it's almost beyond credulity that you consider a line like "The detainee was listed on a document recovered in safehouse raids associated with suspected al Qaida in Karachi" to mean that the source is about any given safehouse or discusses it in any detail whatsoever.  This is the sort of argument we've both seen at AfD where the "reliable sources" a fanboy claims for his favorite garage band are nothing more than a one-line "Love Muscle is playing at Paul's Mall on Tuesday and Wednesday at 8 PM" buried in the arts and entertainment section of the local alternative weekly.  We properly dismiss such arguments out of hand; why are you making them now?  I don't get it."   Ravenswing  10:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A simpler way of saying it, actually - coverage of Abdul is detailed and substantial. Coverage of the safehouse is not. If we take away "stuff Abdul did at a safe house in Karachi" we're left with nothing, because all we know is based on things people did in relation to it. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is that different from Perth, Western Australia and Perth, Tasmania? Couldn't someone come along and say, "everything in these articles is about something someone did at Perth.  Captain James Stirling founded it; John Glenn flew overhead in Friendship 7; etc. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if that person was a moron. I can pull up the Perth, Western Australia article and see how many people live there, what the average temperature of the place is, that it's a seat of government, that's it's on The Economist Most Livable Cities list ... why, I can find hundreds of facts about Perth there, many which have nothing to do with someone doing something there.  By contrast, let's take a look at this article.  Other than these sources claiming that particular suspected terrorists used them, you can't tell us a single thing about them.  You can't tell us where they are.  You can't tell us what they look like.  You can't say what neighborhoods they're in, what architectural significance they have (if any), what other people might live there, whether they're residences or businesses ... nothing.  That is what makes all these articles unsustainable, and I'm baffled to the point of bewilderment that you haven't seen that.    Ravenswing  19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe your comment about only using references in articles when their main topic is the topic of the article, is consistent with how references are used on the wikipedia. Documents, including the source documents we reference in our articles, routinely talk about more than one topic.  If we applied your proposed rule here to all wikipedia articles, we would have quality control volunteers weighing in, and telling other contributors, "You can't use this reference in the articles on P.T. Barnum, circus, or elephant, because it is already being used in the article on Jumbo".
 * That seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers stayed in Karachi guesthouses is not trivial. Their use as underground hospitals is not trivial.  Their use as underground factories for the the manufacture of timers for time bombs is not trivial.  The capture of a senior al-Qaeda leader's computers at one of the guesthouses, with key lists of al Qaeda members, is not trivial.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * References don't have to have the article topic as their main topic, but they do have to have it as a topic, not something briefly mentioned in passing. I'm not saying it's trivia, I'm saying the mentions are - you don't have two paragraphs about how the 9/11 hijackers stayed in the house, and what else the house was used for, and how long the house has been operating, et al, you don't have coverage of the house, you have coverage of the hijackers which briefly mentions the house. I'm not saying it has to be the main topic, but it does have to be a topic. Right now you've given me multiple sources with trivial mentions, not multiple sources with significant mentions. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go back to Rabbani's memos. Half or more of the documents are about Rabbani's association with the safe house.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They're sentences about Rabbani which mention his association with the safe house, not sentences about the safe house. Sources don't have to have the article subject as the primary subject, but it does have to be a subject; show me one paragraph where the house itself is the subject. Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am doing my very best to take your concerns seriously. I am having a lot of trouble with this last one.  If the safe houses weren't a subject of these documents, then how is it the documents have informed us about the safe houses in, as WP:GNG requires, "substantial detail"?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They haven't, they've informed us of the activities of people around the safe houses in some detail. What do we know about the safe house itself? Do we know where in Karachi it is, when it was set up, when it was closed down, whether it's a single house? No. We know absolutely nothing about the house itself because none of the sources are looking at it directly. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, all of the things you claim aren't in our sources actually are in our sources. Please, before claiming some fact you consider important is not in our references, take a moment, and actually read the list I prepared for you on the 25th at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani. I prepared this specifically to answer your questions.  It took several hours to do so.  Frankly, I am mystified as to why you keep making these incorrect assertions, about what is missing from the references.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article still falls short of "significant coverage", and quite frankly I echo Ravenswing's mysticism over why a long-term Wikipedian is making such obviously flawed arguments (see his point above). I can only assume it is because you wrote the article and will jump through any hoop, however ridiculous, to get it kept. In any case, we're not going to agree here since we seem to have completely different ideas as to how the notability guidelines are to be interpreted; I would suggest leaving it here. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, in the history of the wikipedia, anyone has ever started a comment with: "I am surprised that a contributor of your experience would..." that wasn't followed by a uncollegial comment. I won't respond in kind.  I will remind you that arguments for deletion are supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on concerns with the current state of the article.  Yet you are arguing for deletion, based on the current state of the article, even though every concern you have raised has been addressed, multiple times here in this discussion.  You wrote about what you could assume about my motives.  That is counter-policy.  We are supposed to discuss the issues, not speculate about the character, personal judgment, intelligence or imagined hidden motives of those we disagree with.  With some effort I am going to decline to respond in kind with speculation about your character, judgment or hidden motives.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd addressed my concerns properly I wouldn't be discussing this, would I? My argument is not and has never been based on the current state of the article, other than a minor quibble about synthesis which is not the main issue. I note that you said nothing about Sherurcij's personal comments above; is it because it wasn't directed at you, or simply because he's on your side in this discussion? Hypocrisy much? Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues. Geo Swan (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done for dodging the point there. I'll reiterate; you're complaining about personal comments made by Ravenswing and myself. Where's your damning reply to Sherurcij's earlier ones? We're obviously not going to agree here and have different ideas of what "significant" is - lets just drop it. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues. Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to bait me. Our comments on content issues don't agree and are unlikely to, since we have different ideas of what the word "significant" in WP:GNG should mean. Lets leave it here. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A catch all article about any instance of location being called a safe house. I'm going with WP:GNG Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please be specific about which of the five points in WP:GNG you think this article does not satisfy? Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have said this several times in several of these discussions. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content."  Ravenswing  05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has been repeated here. However, it seems to me that those repetitions have been bereft of any meaningful explanation as to why the details in the references that I suggested were significant and substantial, weren't significant and substantial.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The only question seems to be about the extent of coverage, and whether it is significant-- examining the sources themselves, I find that taken all in all they talk sufficiently about this to write an article.  The possibility of combining this article with other similar ones should be kept in mind, however,  BTW, I do not think that the section on people Listed on a list found in a safe house is sufficient connection to include them here in such detail.    DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 29 August 2009 (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.