Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIFG 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LIFG training camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an omnibus nomination for a (fraction of) the plethora of articles on non-notable terrorist training camps. These articles have been created by User:Geo Swan several years ago, and each one is based on a couple (often just one, in rare cases two or three) brief mentions of a given camp in the DoD Guantanamo documents (Guantanamo Combatant Status Review Tribunal/Administrative Review Board files). Ordinarily one might need to discuss whether these documents qualify as primary or secondary sources, etc, but here this is largely beside the point. Even under the most generous view of the sources, a couple of brief name drops does not even come close to significant specific and detailed coverage (not even by one source, not to mention multiple independent sources) required by WP:GNG. Each of these camps barely passes WP:V and would not even qualify for a redirect, since redirects are meant for likely search terms. The creator of these articles, User:Geo Swan, has been mentioning (in previous individual AfDs, to the deleting admins, at DRV etc) a global merge proposal that he created on March 29 of this year: WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. However, no-one else appears to be interested in sifting through this pile of obscure mentions of non-notable camps, and the proposal page received only one comment by a user other than Geo Swan. Talk page merge proposals even on reasonably notable topics often attract very little participation, move at a glacial pace and often stagnate not leading to anything. In this case, given the multitude of these "training camp" articles on extremely obscure subjects, it is not reasonable for Geo Swan to expect the community to get involved in a line-by-line analysis of these brief mentions and in trying to create order out of chaos. The fact that this plethora of articles on extremely non-notable subjects have been sitting in mainspace for years is a significant problem. The only reasonable soution here is to userfy all this stuff into Geo Swan's userspace and let him slowly deal with sorting through this material at his own speed. If at some point someone comes along who shares his abiding passion for collecting every brief mention of a terrorist training camp, then great. For now the priority here should be to move all this material out of the mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)




 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * userify (at least). These stubs don't present any sources on the camps. The papers barely mention them. East of Borschov 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with the caveat that if any editor wants a userfied copy to work on a merge, that request ought to be granted. These have been around far too long, with no evidence of progress.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with right to userfy per nom. IQinn (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, and if the article creator can proffer secondary sources on a particular camp they may be recreated. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:16, 29 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.