Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer  T - 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
A list of nn people with a bunch of red links just begging to be created. POV anti-Americanism, WP:POINT created because individual people whose articles already created have been listed for AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm not sure, but isn't this stuff better in commons? Anyways, get rid of all redlinks and NPOV the thing.  And when I say get rid, I don't mean make an article. - Hahnchen 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep sans broken links and NPOV. Gazpacho
 * Keep they might not all merit articles, but a fair number do. Not pov in concept at all. Far more important than many articles about U.S. news events that have a similar level of detail. It only reflects badly on America because Guantanamo Bay reflects badly on America - as many of America's traditional supporters agree, not to mention plenty of Americans. CalJW 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since when has it been anti-American to talk about those people that Americans have wrongfully incarcerated? Shall we delete Japanese internment in the United States too? FCYTravis 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Worthwhile list. Crypticfirefly 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An important list. Even if the items in a list are not that notable the list can be. --Apyule 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep arg... why are we trying to fracture a fractured debate even more? --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The list itself is important, the people in are not so they red links should be removed (if anybody wants to expand on individual detainees they can do that within the article as none warrant their own).
 * Keep The existence of the prison at Gitmo is significant, and the list of names is also significant, although individually they do not merit their own articles.  There are many such articles on wiki; see, e.g., Category:Lists of people who were executed. Brandon39 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep and please zoe do not try to delete something to make a point that is a waste of our limited resources so please do not do it again Yuckfoo 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is yet another case, where a list is a good place to re-direct/merge minor articles to, instead of going through AFD for each one. No AFDs were needed to deal with this problem.  The appropriate thing, was to discuss it centrally on the list's talk page, and merge/re-direct minor articles to the list.  --rob 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but most of the people aren't notable enough for their own article. The ones that aren't should be redirected and the current red links should be removed. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, they all have articles. -- Kjkolb 07:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Anti-Americanism can be solved by editing the top paragraphs, the red links by making the names non-linking. Removing the names altogether as now has been done, was a bad step, which I will be reverting. - Andre Engels 11:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is vitally important information concerning a significant and continuing political event. The article needs serious improvment, and accurate sources need to be cited the for content of the first two sections and the names on the list. I see no anti-Americanism in the article as it stands, and it should be kept and improved, redlinks or not. And when was the existence of numerous redlinks a reason for deletion? Well done to Andre Engels for restoring the full list. -- Cactus.man >Reply 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, delink all the redlinks. Most of the names that do have links are so stubby they should be redirects to this list, anyway.  Maybe someone could look into that. Proto t c 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that what you see? I see a few, which, at this point, remain small stubs.  I see many that are several K in length, and I think almost all the remaining articles contain both noteworthy, verifiable facts and link to sources where those facts can be verified, or expanded.
 * I must be missing something. Could you please explain how redirecting an article back to the list improve the wikipedia?  --  Geo Swan 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a stub is a stub, waiting for expansion, not deletion, merging or redirection. -- Cactus.man >Reply 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete the sourcing is suspect. needs clean up and sources. Joaquin Murietta 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, any criticism of the Bush administration's attempts to rule the world with an iron fist is a sign of communism, terrorism, and hating freedom. &mdash; J I P | Talk 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep These detainees have been at the cetner of significant public debate, and their identities are significant for that reason alone. Whether or not they are rightfully detained, whether or not they did in fact commit acts of terrorism or "unlawful combat", and whether or not it is proper that they be detained as they now are are significant issues both inside and outside the U.S. The identities of the detainees can be sued to help research facts relevant to the above debates. Highly encyclopediac, assuming that the list is verifiable, whcih it should be. DES (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup, NPOV, remove redlinks, and maybe move to Guantanamo Bay detainees, as it's substanitally more than a list. -R. fiend 16:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, delink red links, as per Proto. -- SCZenz 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup work - anyone with 15 minutes to spare an do the rest of the redlinks. Have also tried to dePOV and cleanup some English.  This article is an obvious keep.  Anyone in Guanatanamo is notable. Vizjim 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, delink red links. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not really anti-american, and definitely important.--Alhutch 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. a list of people of being detained in a specific location is not inherently/unavoidably POV. if it has POV problems, that in itself is not grounds for deletion. possibly move per R. fiend. Nateji77 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not anti-American POV. -- Decumanus 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of both historical and current interest. I just took a minute and delinked the red links for 'I'; it won't take long to do the rest. Chick Bowen 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you offer those name(s) of the entries whose sourcing you find "suspect"? Since I worked on trying to make sure there was at least one source for each entry I would be happy to set your mind at ease.  --  Geo Swan 23:40, 6 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.