Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minors detained in the global war on terror


 * 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Minors detained in the global war on terror
This article is interesting, but is essentially pov in its view on terror suspects. There is no reason to list suspects based on whether or not they are minors. KazakhPol 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Definitely POV, but probably a valid subject for an article. Could also be merged with the main article listing war-on-terror detainees, if there is room for another section. --Brianyoumans 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to remove this article. Akihabara 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Minors are treated differently by the law, international standards, etc. so it doesn't strike me as POV to list them differently. Would you mind elaborating, KazakhPol? Thanks!--Kchase T 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy keep per Kchase02. The article does need to attribute criticisms to (plentiful) sources.--Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- According to WP:DEL, specifically, WP:DEL, a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. --  Geo Swan 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- disclaimer -- I started this article.
 * This article is important. There are many newspaper articles that get the details wrong.  About six months ago some Arab journalists came away from a briefing from a DoD spokesmen, believing he had told them that there were only three minors in Guantanamo, and that those three were receiving schooling.  Untrue, the three children who received schooling, and played soccer with their guards, at Camp Iguana were released in January 2004.
 * I'd encourage anyone who thinks they have noticed POV in the article to be specific about their concern -- on the Talk:Minors detained in the global war on terror --  Geo Swan 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What I meant by my "Definitely POV" remark above is the the topic of the article, as stated, is POV. If one wished to make an article with the opposite POV, one would title it Use of Child Soldiers by Islamic Terrorists. Both of these are going to be attack articles, inherently.  However, I think this is a valid topic and a good start on an article. --Brianyoumans 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first started initiating articles on the Guantanamo captives I had my first experience with the {afd} process. One day I found four articles nominated for deletion at practically the same time.  Several of the nominators argued that the topic of Guantanamo was "inherently POV", and "inherently anti-American".  I asked them to explain themselves more fully.  But they declined.  So far as I am concerned no topic is inherently POV.  Some topics are merely harder than others to write from a NPOV.  But I don't think this means we should try to create  dueling articles from two different points of view.  I think this means we should just try harder to write one article that we can all agree is written from a NPOV.  If there are specific passages you feel don't measure up to the NPOV standard I encourage you to draw them to our attention, on Talk:Minors detained in the global war on terror.  Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for reasons explained by Geo Swan Alf photoman 12:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is important but needs more sources. TSO1D 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A few things. Speedy keep only applies in limited circumstances as described at WP:SK. POV isn't normally a reason to delete an article, though it may be a valid reason for something that is irredeemably or inherently POV, where substantial efforts have been made to fix the POV problems. List of sequels that were better than the original is a good example of an article idea that is inherently POV; and so can't be pursued.--Kchase T 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced (U.S. Defense Department and Labor Department, other verifiable sources) and bears on the GWOT. If the nominator sees POV, feel free to edit. If there are reliable sources which disagree, feel free to add them. Edison 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Neutral on this particular article, but what's the justification for having the separate articles on each detainee? They may be encyclopedically notable as group, but this does not mean that they are notable enough as individuals for their own articles Bwithh 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of the work on the articles on the articles on the individual captives -- and their "notability" is a perenial question. Many wikipedia contributors have called for the deletion of particular articles, citing WP:BIO.  Two wikipedians nominated Shaker Aamer, the first article when sorted alphabetically, announcing their plan to then do a bulk deletion of all the other articles on Guantanamo captives if that nomination succeeded.   See Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer.
 * I point out to them that WP:BIO acknowledges, right in its first paragraph, that it is not an official wikipedia policy. WP:BIO acknowledges that it is just a guideline, one that is considered controversial by some contributors.  Whatever authority it has is based not on being an official policy, but on its interpretation of three real official policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER.
 * My perception is that these challenges highlight the weakness of using "notability" as a guide to which articles should be deleted. It is far too subjective and vulnerable to unconscious influence from the wikipedia's systematic bias.
 * If there is ever an explicit debate to transform notability from a guideline to an official policy I will argue very strongly that it should not be transformed. Rather I would suggest this guideline be deprecated.
 * IMO we should stick with the more objective criteria WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER.
 * Cheers! --  Geo Swan 15:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you're coming from an understanding of Wikipedia which is very much the opposite of mine. Pointing out that WP:BIO is just a guideline is a double-edged sword. I've routinely point out the same thing when inclusionists use WP:BIO to argue for keeping articles. I would emphasize that proponents of encyclopedic notability see it as extending not just from notability guidelines but also from WP:NOT which is a core official policy as well as the No.1 official policy & mission statement: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether." All other guidelines and policies including WP:NOR,WP:V, WP:NPOV serve this ultimate overarching policy/mission statement. Exclusion on the bases of encyclopedic notability based on these official policies helps prevent (or slow) Wikipedia's slide into becoming a free-for-all webhosting/information database/news report archive/networking&marketing service. Bwithh 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These articles are being cited by other sources. They are proving useful, as a reference, to external authors.  That is part of what makes an encyclopedia, agreed?  Could you explain more fully why you think these articles don't fit within the goals of an encyclopedia?
 * Cheers! --  Geo Swan 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It is notable and is timelyRaveenS 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep needs to be better sourced, less POV GabrielF 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep (alleged, if you like) arbitrary detention (& denial of due process etc.) of minors is obviously notable in & of itself as a more serious breach of human rights than arbitrary detention (& etc.) in & of itself. possibly speedy keep or WP:SNOW per bad faith nomination? very difficult to agf when nom does not explain/justify what they mean by 'essentially pov in its view on terror suspects'. (note the 2 sentences in the nom are unrelated) &rArr;  bsnowball  13:05, 17 December 2006 (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.