Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Saiaf 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   merge to Afghan training camp. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kun Saiaf training camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article is already present in the article Ismael Ali Faraj Ali Bakush. IQinn (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other afd they recently initiated: Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound, Articles for deletion/Toran training camp, Articles for deletion/Kut Bakram training camp, Articles for deletion/Talukan training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge.  I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged.  I suggested merging, back then.  I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June  -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here.  In another similar afd our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps.  Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps.  This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself.  If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps.  I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this afd of the previous proposals.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the absolutely wrong bad faith accusations and ad hominum part of the comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times.


 * Coming to the content issue:
 * Comment - This particular camp here is not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that User Geo Swan has provided elsewhere. (The graph that he has placed in his comment here is taken from this report.)


 * This source list all notable and even the less notable training camps. That Kun Saiaf training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until there is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Afghan training camp. There does not appear to be satisfactory coverage to warrant a stand alone article at this time. -- Pink Bull  22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, per above merges Also, same concerns re nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 7 July 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.