Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashara guest house


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashara guest house

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't think that being mentioned in some legal documents and having been occupied by two Guantanamo detainees is enough to make this place notable. Prezbo (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference here are some AfDs for similar articles:

Prezbo (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Jalalabad
 * Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Konduz
 * Articles for deletion/Al Qaida guest house, Kabul
 * Articles for deletion/Al Qaida safe house, Karachi


 * Comment -- Eight Guantanamo captives (not two) had their continued detention justified based on allegations they had stayed at the Ashara guest house. . Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The nomination characterizes the house as having been "being mentioned in some legal documents". Actually, the camp was allegedly:
 * Run by Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi -- number three in al Qaida.
 * Abdul Hadi ran his financial payment network out of the house.
 * The house was frequented by senior members of al Qaida.
 * The house was located in the Karte Parwan region of Kabul, the high-rent area now often called the diplomatic district.
 * The house housed graduates of al Qaida's training camps, while they were on their way to their assignments.
 * The house could accommodate 25-50 occupants.
 * I suggest this is a meaningful, substantive level of detail -- which I suggest it is inaccurate to describe as merely "being mentioned". Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- FWIW, with the exception of Abdul Zahir's charge sheet, none of the documents are "legal documents". The DoD was very insistent that the captives' 2004 Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the captives' subsequent annual reviews were not "legal proceedings" -- that they were "administrative proceedings".  The DoD's position was that the captives weren't entitled to legal advice because these were "administrative proceedings".  Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- for the reasons stated above. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PAPER -- it seems, given the 10 references, to have actually existed. -- Kendrick7talk 02:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Geo Swan makes quite a convincing argument. Prezbo, why list four old AFDs?  Two were deleted, two more ended in keep.  I don't see the point of doing that.   D r e a m Focus  15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, they're AfDs for articles on similar topics so I thought people might find them useful in making their decisions.Prezbo (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the analysis above, this is notable enough to be kept. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These are the tangential instrumentalities of notable people, but they are not notable on their own. There only seems to be mention of these housed in government documents. -- Pink Bull  02:39, 26 February 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.