Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margun 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. Redirect at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Margun training camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Terrorist training camp which does not meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources, just one sentence in a document. Claritas § 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge -- I started this article and about two dozen articles about other training camps, way back in 2006 nad 2007. On March 29, 2010, I went on record with a proposal that the separate articles about most of the camps should be merged.  I went on record as acknowledging that I hadn't found additional references to support separate articles for most of these camps.  There are lots of WP:RS for the Al Farouq training camp, Khalden training camp, Derunta training camp, and Tarnak Farms, so they should remain separate articles.  Possibly other articles should remain separate.  When I drafted the proposal I was hoping there would be a collegial informed debate on all the camps. The phenomenon that alleged attendance at a suspect training camp was used, in part, to justify continued detention in Guantanamo is well documented.  Felter et al, at West Point, noted that of the first 516 allegation memos, 181 justified the continued detention of captives, in part, because of their alleged attendance at a training camp.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - to Abdullah Mohammad Khan. There are not enough information for a stand alone article about the camp. All information we do have are the allegations against Abdullah Mohammad Khan so that we should merge it to this highly related article. IQinn (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, with no merges and no redirects. A single sentence mention in a judicial transcript. Far far below any reasonable interpretation of WP:GNG. Nothing of value here that would deserve merging; does not even merit a redirect, not being a likely search term. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The best approach would be to userfy the material, so that the original editor merge it on his own time schedule, but that approach only makes sense if the editor agrees to it. I proposed this to the editor, but the "response" was non-responsive, so the only other recourse is to delete.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:39, 20 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.