Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees


 * 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   merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N. Only sources are publications by the military, not any independent sources about this. Independent sources routinely mention that there are facilities for dental care, or that medical and dental care are available, but nothing more than such very passing mentions is available. Fram (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Merge - The topic is arcane, but it is correctly sourced and even has a swell picture. My primary concern is that it seems to be an orphan article. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
 * The sources are all primary though, not independent. Fram (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is whether or not the information is accurate, verifiable, and written neutrally. Yes, yes, and yes, it would seem. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
 * Please read WP:N. Independent sources are required.Fram (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary sources and independent sources are not antipodes. There is absolutely NO prohibition against using primary sources on Wikipedia, only that such material must be verifiable and used carefully. See, for example, the final decision of ArbCom on Race and Intelligence. Now, as for the question of independence of sources in this specific case, pretty clearly we disagree on a fundamental level there: this article shows: a book, Congressional Record, Huffington Post, New Yorker, in addition to DoD-originated material. Nothing is "primary source material" here, for what it's worth. A "primary source" in this case would be something like a memoir of a prisoner or a dentist, or internal documents of the medical staff, or the published report of a Red Cross investigating committee, etc. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Modified: Carrite (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. WP:Party and person might help.  WP:GNG requires that subjects be supported by sources that are both "independent" and "secondary".  Independent primary sources do not actually count towards the rebuttable presumption of notability under GNG.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE, and WP:ODD. It has three good sources (since when is the US Government not a reliable source?) and is about what had been a controversial topic.  An orphan article can be fixed with wikilinks.  Many arcane an odd articles exist here at Wikipedia; we don't delete them but rather celebrate them. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not stated that they are not reliable sources, I have said that they are not independent sources. Please don't reply to arguments that haven't been made... And I do hope that you agree that the US Government, which organises the dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees, is by definition not an independent source about the subject. Fram (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet GNG. Kind of an esoteric subject, but that's not a reason to delete in and of itself. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   speak 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. All sources in this article are currently WP:PRIMARY.  The topic doesn't appear to cross the notability threshold to the point where a full article needs to be devoted to it.  Perhaps an article on medical treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees in general would be more appropriate.    Snotty Wong   confabulate 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guantanamo Bay detention camp article is already vast and this topic is very esoteric. That's a merge that would add cholesterol without protein. This is a very specialized article, but it's well enough done and relevant enough to stick around, in my opinion. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
 * Point taken. However, I don't think we should base our decisions about this article on the problems evident in another article.  For example, it is probably more appropriate to split off some of the larger sections from Guantanamo Bay detention camp (like the enormous Criticism and condemnation section) into a separate article rather than creating permastubs on more esoteric subjects.   Snotty Wong   prattle 03:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, i just noticed, we have an article on Guantanamo detainees' medical care. An article that is hardly known and does not get notable traffic. It might be a good idea to merge it into that article. I tent to change my !vote to that. IQinn (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to merging to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. Good find.    Snotty Wong   talk 16:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp Guantanamo detainees' medical care per Snottywong. He sums it up correctly. IQinn (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC) -- I just changed the target article after i found out we have an article on medical care. The dental care fits perfectly into the Guantanamo detainees' medical care both articles are weak now with very little traffic.  IQinn (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources do not have to be independent to be considered reliable. Read the WP:V policy page more closely.  Google news [] shows them talking about the superb dental care there, and that they get the same care given to US military personal.  But no deep coverage or anything.    D r e a m Focus  11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have to read the WP:V page more closely, you have to read the nomination more closely. I have never stated that the sources are not reliable, as I had already clarified in my response to Bearian. However, I have stated, and no one has denied, that the sources are not independent, and independent sources are required by WP:N, which is the reason for this nomination. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the part of WP:V at WP:SELFPUB. You can use self published material, such as the reports by the military you objected to in your nomination, as a reliable source.   D r e a m Focus  02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not as an independent source. My reasoning is based on WP:N, but the last point from WP:SELFPUB is quite relevant as well: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article is primarily based on such sources though... Fram (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The meme out there is that Guantanamo captives receive superb medical care, and that they receive superb dental care. Coverage of this topic has included wild exagerration.  In 2005 there was repeated in the US press an anecdote about how rapidly "Guantanamo captive" Jose Padilla received emergency dental care, that he reported a tooth-ache at 3am and was sitting in the dentist's chair at 8:30am, less than 6 hours later -- a level of care none but the richest Americans could afford.  This was an exagerration because, in 2005, the DoD wasn't making public who was a captive in Guantanamo.  Padilla had been transferred to one of the Navy Consolidated brigs, where he and one or two captives had an entire wing to themselves.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any policy- or guideline-based reasons why this article should be kept and why the nomination is incorrect? Your reasoning for keeping it is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:POV, but has nothing to do with whether this subject passes or fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The US Government has, in theory, three branches. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I suggest that if nominator felt that the references, at the time of his or her nomination, were not independent, because those references were written by employees of the US Federal government the appropriate, policy based response would have been to raise that concern on the article's talk page, through the addition of appropriate wikitags, or through discussion. I just added a paragraph that cites some non-DoD references about the captives' dental care.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not athe "appropriate, policy based response", "consider applying a tag" is a possibility raised at WP:AFD, next to redirecting, nominating for deletion, etcetera. Nominating this article for deletion was another "appropriate, policy based response". I have checked for sources myself, as indicated in the nomination. I didn't find any. None of the sources you adde have any indepth coverage of the subject, only passing mentions in articles about clearly other subjects. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not have objection to merger with Guantanamo detainees' medical care. I do have an objection to deletion or the loss of this material in an improper merge. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. The distinction between "dental" and "medical" care is an arbitrary historical artifact anyway.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave as is, both stories are well sourced and about equal length. In America, health coverage does not routinely cover vision and dental. That would seem to be the point that these prisoners have better care than the majority of Americans and likely better than those in the Middle East. If a corollary article about vision care were created I would support that as well. The articles would do well to discuss dental care statistics for the related countries and maybe to other prisoners of the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somestudy (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)  — Somestudy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. No compelling reason to have two separate articles here as both subjects are pretty esoteric. The dental care topic does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as stated. Notable but can easily be discussed in context of the parent article. JFW | T@lk  18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care; dental care can be covered there— Chris! c / t 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * merge as suggested. The medical care article need s very considerable expansion--after if eventually gets it, an unmerge might possibly be suitable, but for now it is the best solution. I thing Geo's concerns about NPOV would be better handled in a single article.    DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Guantanamo detainees' medical care, no need for separate articles, combing will lead to a more comprehensive article. J04n(talk page) 15:58, 18 October 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.