Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan 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) 10:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Libyan training camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Suspected training camp which fails wp:gng. No significant coverage, just some trivial mantions in US military documents. There's also no good reason to identify all these camps with eachother - "Libyan training camp" isn't a proper noun. Claritas § 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)




 * Merge/Redirect to Afghan training camp.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I request nominator withdraw this nomination, which I consider flawed. The nomination claims "...fails wp:gng. No significant coverage, just some trivial mantions in US military documents..."  In fact the camp is one of the more notable of the one hundred or so non-state training camps intelligence analysts report existed in Taliban era Afghanistan, and the lawless tribal areas.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think user Geo Swan is still confused about all these camps. Many of the articles he wrote on training camps have been deleted or were userfied recently. One other article he wrote is  User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/training_camps/Torkhum_training_camp. The reference there list two Libyan training camps (Torkhum and Samar Khaila).
 * Could you please tell us how you want to organize this mess? What do you plan to cover in the article Libyan training camp? Is it one camp or do you want to list all camps that were run by Libyan people? Could you please tell us? Otherwise think i would go to !vote for userfy, delete or merge. IQinn (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind everyone that our deletion policies say that a perception that an article on a notable topic is poorly organized, or indeed lapses from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, are not grounds for deletion. When a contributor is concerned that an articles on a notable topic is poorly organized, biased, or contains OR, those specific issues should be raised, on the article's talk page, or via the responsible use of wikitags. Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of falsely suggesting bad faith on part of the nominator it would be courtesy to answer the questions of other editors. Let me put them here again in case you overlooked them.
 * Many of the articles you wrote on training camps have been deleted or were userfied recently. One other article you wrote is  User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/training_camps/Torkhum_training_camp. The reference there list two Libyan training camps (Torkhum and Samar Khaila).
 * Could you please tell us how you want to organize this mess? What do you plan to cover in the article Libyan training camp? Is it one camp or do you want to list all camps that were run by Libyan people? IQinn (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge None of the sources call it "Libyan Training Camp" as a proper noun - they are only describing in general terms a training camp in Libya. It's not even clear they are all talking about the same camp. The proper-noun named "Libyan/Torkhom camp" mentioned above is a possible name for an article. But without multiple mentions of what is obviously one camp, I think that any named (as in "proper noun" and not descriptive comment) should be merged into the more general article on Afghan training camps. First Light (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT the assertion that the camp was in Libya. No offense but none of the references assert this or imply this.  All the references in the article or cited above are clear that the Libyan training camp they refer to was in Eastern Afghanistan.
 * WRT the speculation that we don't know whether or not there was a single camp known as "the Libyan training camp", you and I are perfectly entitled to privately speculate that the WP:RS refer to multiple camps, but Wikipolicy bars us from inserting our own speculations into article space. Our private speculation as to the true situation should not affect article space, because WP:VER says we aim for "verifiability not truth". Authoritative, verifiable WP:RS refer to a single camp, so, until WP:RS state or speculate there were multiple camps, we have to stick with describing a single camp. No offense, but it seems to me that basing a delete opinion on the speculation that there may have been multiple camps is just as much a lapse from policy as it would be to insert unreferenced speculation into article space.
 * WRT Libyan/Torkhom training camp -- first, please understand, Torkhum, also known as Torkham, Torkhom and Towr Kham is the name of a city. Some of the references to the Libyan training camp place it "North of Kabul".  Torkhom is actually about 100 kilometers downstream of Kabul, on the Kabul River, and is almost directly due East of Kabul.
 * WRT the name not being a "proper noun" -- both the initial nomination, and the comment above, assert that the name is not a proper noun, as if that were a telling point, as if there was a guideline or manual of style that recommended article names should be proper nouns. But neither the nomination or comment above cites this guideline or manual of style.  I'd appreciate a link to that wikidocument, because I am sure if there were a wikidocument that made this recommendation it would state when exceptions to this recommendation should be made.  If a wikidocument made this recommendation I would be surprised if this particular article name didn't fall squarely in the exception category.  Please remember that arguments for deletion are supposed to be based on the merits for covering the topic, and not on perceived weaknesses of the current state of the article.  A concern over the name' of an article is not a valid reason to argue for deletion.  It is an argument for suggesting an alternate name.  Please bear in mind that the Afghan training camps were all secret camps camps.  If we ever learn the official names for these camps I would be the first one to argue we should rename the articles to match the official name.  Meanwhile I think we should stick with the best name we have, the name used in the documents that refer to the camp.  Let me ask you -- would you argue for deleting this article if it had a different name, if it bore the name whatever organization sponsored it, or ran it, used on their official paperwork?    Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, you are right - it is being called "Libyan Camp" (actually more often than "Libyan Training Camp" by my count) as a proper noun, and it is in Afghanistan. My 'merge'

!vote is not the same as arguing for deletion. I still think an individual training camp, mentioned a small handful of times without any real description, would be better placed at the Afghan training camp article. First Light (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Afghan training camp per First Light and Claritas. IQinn (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient individual notability has been shown. Besides, the proposed merge does not seem to make the barest logical sense, any more than merging the articles for Libya into Afghanistan.    DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you under the assumption that the camp was in Libya?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:52, 12 August 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.