Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moroccan 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. I'll be happy to userfy, just drop me a note on my talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Moroccan training camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG. There's no specific camp called "Moroccan training camp" - this article is just about information the US have which suggests that there may be an Al-Qaedia camp somewhere in Morocco. Claritas § 19:04, 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) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all fine, but where are you going to merge it to ? Claritas § 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I offered a link to my March 29 proposal. It lists two possible targts for a merge: Afghan training camps or a new article with a name like Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives. 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem with a merge is that there's no verifiable information on the camp available. It might not even exist. Claritas § 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You write: "It might not even exist". I suggest that this argument, in general, isn't really relevant when considering whether an article should be kept, deleted, or merged.  Our opinions, my opinion, your opinion, on the credibility of WP:RS is irrelevant, according to several of the wikipedia's core policies.  Our core policies protect the wikipedia from being over-run by fringe-science kooks, drafting POV articles on "wongo juice".  We have articles on fringe sciences, like, for example, phrenology.  It shouldn't matter whether or not the individuals who draft those articles on fringe sciences believe phrenology was based on something real.  Why?  Because the rest of the community should insist that articles on fringe sciences, like phrenology cite WP:RS, and measure up to all the standards we expect of articles.  When a fringe science topic is covered in WP:RS, but all the WP:RS coverage dismiss the topic as nonsense, then that is as far as the wikipedia article on the topic should go.  If someone claims that "Phrenology today" has a brilliant rebuttal of all those critiques we'd consider whether Phrenology today measured up to our standards, probably decide it did not.
 * It is not our role to inject our personal opinions into articles. We are supposed to reflect what WP:RS say.  Period.  For decades continental drift was regarded as a kooky fringe science theory.  If the wikipedia had been around, back then, and we applied the wikipedia's core principles, we would have covered continental drift to the extent it had been written about in the WP:RS of the day.
 * With this camp, and many of the similar camps, we have WP:RS, that assert the existence of these camps, that leave some wikipedia contributors skeptical of their existence. Personally, I too am skeptical of some of their assertions.  But my skepticism, your skepticism, should play no role in what gets put into article space.  That is NPOV 101.  Over the last five years on the order of 100 Guantanamo related articles have been nominated for deletion.  Some ended up being deleted.  IIRC most survived.  In those discussions one perennial complaint used to be that the articles weren't citing enough MSM coverage -- phrased as if that was equivalent to saying they weren't citing WP:RS.  That was a mis-citing of WP:RS and WP:VER.  We don't insist that every topic we cover can be referenced to MSM coverage.  Official government web-pages, official government briefings, official government press-releases, and official government publications are all accepted as WP:RS, as WP:RS to that government's official position.  Citing those WP:RS does not imply that the wikipedia is endorsing the credibility of those WP:RS, or any other WP:RS we cite, because, we are not trying to prove things are "true", merely that they are "verifiable".  It is completely verifiable that Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan had his continued detention justified, at least in part, based on the allegation he attended the "Moroccan training camp".
 * I've already acknowledged that the further references I thought I would find to support this camp having a separate article weren't found. But I maintain it is appropriate to have a broader article cover all the known camps, including the ones for which there are not sufficient references for an individual article.  Now you get to say, "I have stated my opinion, but I am just a volunteer, doing this in my spare time, I don't really have time to respond to your counter-arguments."  I really am interested in trying to understand your objections to a merge.
 * I will offer a couple of final counter-examples, to which you can respond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We cover lots of topics from theoretical physics, for which a critic might say, that new sub-atomic particle may not even exist.  No one believes in the luminiferous ether anymore, so it doesn't really exist, but we have an article on it.  Finally, how about Saddam Hussein's vast arsenal of WMD?  The Bush administration insisted that Iraq had this vast arsenal of nerve gas, and possibly germ warfare and atomic bombs as well, ready to use, and posing a vast threat to world peace.  This theory was widely accepted.  The Bush administration continued to maintain it had existed, and just hadn't been located, for years after the invasion.  We wouldn't stop covering this arsenal now, just because it didn't exist.  And, we shouldn't stop covering these camps, even if their existence were to be disproven.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is all a bit WP:TL;DR. You may bring forward a clear argument that could help us to make progress and to work towards consensus. Thank you IQinn (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read this verbose reply and I'm going to make two short points: a) The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp. It's a vague label, and thus not even an entity. If it pointed to a specific camp, it would be fine, but it isn't. Secondly, it would be different if there were books written on the subject of Moroccan training camp, which suggested that it existed. One sentence in a document which may well not be reliable is not enough. Claritas § 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read this verbose reply and I'm going to make two short points: a) The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp. It's a vague label, and thus not even an entity. If it pointed to a specific camp, it would be fine, but it isn't. Secondly, it would be different if there were books written on the subject of Moroccan training camp, which suggested that it existed. One sentence in a document which may well not be reliable is not enough. Claritas § 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You write: "The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp." You write this as if you know it to be an established fact.  Sorry, you don't know this.  I believe the surface meaning intended by the authors of the document was that Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan did attend a specific camp, that they called the "Moroccan training camp".  The authors of these memos described other captives attending similar camps, with similar names, tied to the nations.  Mohammed Nasim was alleged to have attended an "Arab training camp".  Abdullah Kamel al Kandari, Jalal Salam Awad Awad, and Omar Khalifa Mohammed Abu Bakr were all alleged to have attended the "Libyan training camp":, , .  In all these cases it requires no original research to follow the surface meaning.  No offense, but it seems to me that to interpret the sentence the way you interpret it requires an WP:RS that interprets it that way.  You don't have an WP:RS that interprets the document that way, do you?
 * If there were a book, or even a newspaper article written about this camp, I would be arguing that it merited a separate article. I would not be arguing it merited being merged and redirected.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is verging on stupidity. Are you trying to tell me, that if someone said in conversation to you "I went to a French school", you would believe they went to a specific school called "French School" ? Please explain how this situation is different. Claritas § 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Claritas. That the term "Moroccan training camp" is not mentioned in the research paper Geo has provided also supports Claritas argumentation. IQinn (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment above asserts that the OARDEC memos are "primary sources", and can't be cited without further references to back them up. I believe one has to use highly idiosyncratic interpretation of "primary source" and "secondary source" for this argument.  The authors of the OARDEC memos had to read, understand, interpret, collate, select, and summarize information, sometimes conflicting information, contained in multiple reports from at least half a dozen agencies, in order to prepare each memo.  This means the memos fully satisfy all the criteria to be considered secondary sources.  The OARDEC transcripts are primary sources, the memos are secondary sources.  So, without further references, they substantiate that the official position of the DoD was that these camps exist, and this is all that is necessary to justify merging a paragraph, sentence, or list entry into a broader article, and redirecting this article name to the broader article.  The reason the Moroccan training camp is not mentioned in the Felter article is because the Felter article was based on a review of the 2004 memos, and the Moroccan camp was described in a memo drafted in 2005.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument that the OARDEC summaries could be possibly secondary sources is invalid as OARDEC is an US military body and Guantanamo is run by the US military and the original sources of the informations are unknown but most likely in big chunks produced by the US military itself. OARDEC as well does not have an editorial overboard and zero reputation for fact checking or reputation for anything apart from holding "Kangaroo Tribunals" in addition as numerous habeas corpus cases have shown recently that many allegations in the memos where actually false. Just a laughable claim that this could even come close to secondary sources.
 * Fact checking again: One of your claims is false again. The Felter article included all transcripts including the memos with a/the Moroccan camp(s) we speak about. So you might provide us with another explanation why they choose not to include this presumed camp into their list? As they choose not to include this into their list so we also should not do it as this would be pure WP:OR. IQinn (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You assert that the OARDEC memos can't be considered secondary sources, because they were drafted by DoD personnel. But you make this assertion without citing any wikipolicies. I suggest that who paid the authors is irrelevant to deciding whehter they should be considered WP:RS, or whether they should be considered secondary sources.
 * I am going to repeat the key passage from WP:VER -- we aim for "verifiability, not truth". You found and read judges rulings in the habeas petitions?  That's excellent!  And when you find that those judges rulings comment on specific allegations, and say they aren't credible, then please share those comments.  Incorporate them into the appropriate articles, if you feel up to it.  If not, leave a note about them on the talk page.  That is important info.  Doubts the judges express would be highly encyclopedic.  But my personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations, or your personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations are completely irrelevant.  We are simply not allowed to allow our personal doubts the credibility of our WP:RS to influence what we draft in article space.
 * WRT the assertion about which memos the Felter paper reviewed all the memos. Could you please re-read the title of the document?  "An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries".  That is, they are CSRT memos, from 2004.  These are the same memos reviewed by the team at Seton Hall University School of Law.  The memo in question here was one of the 464 prepared for the first annual Administrative Review Board hearings in 2005 . Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah WP:RS that is always what we here from people who are WP:Gameing the system. Parts of policies cited out of context and with ignoring the underlying spirit of our policies and the aim we have. Sure we work after the principal verifiability not truth. Because we rely on the truth and fact checking of "secondary sources" to write reliable encyclopedic articles. OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact checking nor any other reputation other that of preparing "Kangaroo courts". It does not have an editorial oversight that could guarantee accuracy of their information or a long reputation as newspaper have and as you know it is verified that they where often wrong with their information. That's the reason why we can not use them in a way as we use secondary sources. They can be used as primary sources with all the care we have to take with primary source material.
 * I have brought up a long list of arguments why OARDEC can not come even close to be seen as a secondary source and this claim that has been brought forward by just one editor ad nauseum is disruptive and laughable. Please stop disruptive WP:Wikilawyering and continues fillibustering and work towards consensus.
 * No. That is absolutely wrong. Your claims are almost ridiculous and just repeated false claims without providing serious valid arguments and proof. Where does it say 2004 in the article title??? Sorry but your repeated false claims are simply false. The article text makes clear without any doubt that all memos including the memos we speak about were used. User Geo Swan has a long history of fillibustering and disturbing Afd's without showing any attempted to work towards consensus that does not meed his POV. Sorry to point that out but his behavior is so long standing now and so disruptive that we have to point this out and possible deal with it. Once again stop fillibustering and work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be able to disagree with you without being accused of "filibustering", "gaming the system", etc.
 * My references to WP:VER are completely in line with its central theme, not an out of context misinterpretation. Official government publications are accepted as reliable sources for that government's official positions.  They remain reliable sources for that official position, even if that position is challenged, refuted, or withdrawn.  To assert anything else is to support rewriting history.
 * I disagree that respondent above has offered a "long list" of reasons why OARDEC memos should not be considered reliable sources for the official government positions that an alleged association with camps like this one justified holding individual for years of extrajudicial detention.
 * WRT the Felter paper being based solely on documents drafted in 2004. I am mystified why you keep repeating this misconception.  I explained this, once again, on User talk:Iqinn.
 * After User:Iqinn erased my attempts to address this misconception from the User talk:Iqinn I compiled both recent explanations in User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/The Felter memo is only based on the first 516 CSRT allegation memos. Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered on your talk page and as said the Report leaves no doubt that memos that mention Moroccan camps were included in their research. So why did they do not mention a Moroccan camp? You dispute that the memo of Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan was not included in their report? IQinn (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I dispute the 2005 memo was analyzed in the Felter paper, since the Felter paper says it is based on Combatant Status Review Tribunal allegation memos, and the memo in question was not prepared for his CSR Tribunal, but rather for his first annual Administrative Review Board hearing. In the second good faith explanation I offered you on User talk:Iqinn I supplied you with four links, , , , from , that established that the DoD has published 1,595 memos, not just the 516 analyzed in the Felter paper.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT working towards consensus, I am confident my contribution history shows the complete opposite. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to disagree but repeating things ad nauseum in a verbose way can be a problem. It is hard to learn something if you simply stick to your believes.
 * These are primary sources and have even lower quality than court papers. These sources can only be used in a limited way and with a lot of care.
 * I am mystified why you still want to challenge this point and you repeat your misconception. No the report makes explicit clear that all documents including these one here have been used.
 * As said you are welcome to stick to your believes but it is hard to learn anything if you do so. IQinn (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You write: "These sources can only be used in a limited way and with a lot of care." All sources should be used with care.  Using the source that justified the continued detention of Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan due to alleged training at the "Moroccan training camp" in Jalalabad to support listing the Moroccan training camp in a table of "Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives", in a broader article on alleged training camps, is a limited and careful use of the source.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes primary sources from that low quality as here need a lot of care. To answer your question. That depends on the skills of the editor who would write such an article. That might be difficult and it depends on the skills of the editor who would write such an article. It seems that you are the only one who would be interested to write such an article. So why don't you just give it a try. Give us a break get this article here userfied and write a draft in your user space. Involve the community and let them have a look at your draft and i am sure they will give you helpful comments and might help you to improve on it and then we will see it it will be good enough to be worth to be included into main space. How about that? IQinn (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling the OARDEC memos primary sources doesn't mean they primary sources. Simply calling them primary sources doesn't mean they aren't actually completely valid reliable sources -- for the DoD's position.
 * Why did I just give merging the articles a try? (1) I am not as big a believer in BOLD, particularly for steps that are harder to undo, than they are to do -- like a big series of merges; (2) because I llike seeking input from others first, before I take big steps; (3) I work on controversial topics, and although I take extraordinary steps to comply with NPOV, VER, NOR, and to take civil, specific, good faith feedback into account, I still have these challengers who make these very unpleasant accusations of bad faith, of POV pushing, so I proceed cautiously, show my work, and make proposals like the one you kept ignoring.  I don't think I owe anyone an apology for that.
 * You seem to be saying, above, that you agree that merging the articles on the less well documented camps is not unreasonalbe. Well, for goodness's sake, why then did you nominate a dozen of the related articles for deletion?
 * What you now seem to be suggesting seems extraordinary. What you now seem to be suggesting is that I have to prepare a draft, in user space, of the merging of these articles, and get approval first, before I can move that draft to article space.  I am unaware of any other good faith contributor being asked to submit to this kind of oversight.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * :)) these OARDEC documents are doubtless low quality primary sources and as said before you are fee to claim to your false believe but your are so far off with your ridiculous claim and refusal to get the point that it becomes disruptive.
 * I did not say you should give merging a try. I said you should agree now to move this article here to your user space and to give it a try to write the article that you have suggested in your user space and...and read above. Could you do that? I think there is very strong consensus here in the discussion for that. I am sorry but you do not show any sign of working towards consensus.
 * You interpreting me absolutely wrong i do think this article here should be deleted and i strongly believe that there is nothing to merge.
 * Is there any reason why you do not want to have the community have a look at the new article before sending it to main space? There are a lot of strong voices in this discussion that do not see any possibility how that could be merged into anything. I think it is just courtesy to work with the community. Please do not put you personal like and believe over that of the community and the common goal we have. The discussion so far has shown that you are not willing to accept any community consensus or friendly proposal to solve this problem. That has becoume troublesome and disruptive but that is just my personal opinion and i guess you will once more simply disregarding community input and simply stick to your believe. But let me tell you we have policies to block editors who disrupt our work no matter they do it in good faith or bad faith. IQinn (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I encourage you to do your best to refrain from using terms like "stupidity" to dismiss other contributor's arguments?
 * The memos don't say these individuals went to A Moroccan camp, or A Arab camp. The memos allege the captives went to THE Libyan camp, etc..  I suggest the authors of these memos genuinely believed they were referring to specific, real camps.  In some cases the memos state the city or province where the camp was found.  This is perfectly acceptable English for referring to a specific camp.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After a bit fact checking: Your claim is false the memo says: "...attended A Moroccan training camp in Jalalabad for six to seven months."
 * By the way there is only one source in the article. So you might provide refs when speaking about the captives and memos. Thank you IQinn (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A Morocan training camp in Jalalabad? I stand corrected that this camp was referred to using an A.  My position, voiced publicly on March 29, 2010, is that articles, like this should be merged into a broader article on all the camps.  This ref is perfectly sufficient to support a list entry in a list of all the alleged camps.  I don't understand why you object to this.  I don't really see an explanation of your objections here.
 * WRT pluralization -- since I am making comments that apply to similar camp pluralization is appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pluralization was not always appropriate in the examples you used. Anyway. I have repeatedly ask you to work towards consensus and i have ask you to make clear what exactly from this article here you want to merge to witch article. See the next section. Please stop filibustering and show constructive steps towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - to Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan. There are not enough information for a stand alone article about the camp. The only information in the world we have about the camp are the allegations against Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan so that we should merge it into Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan. IQinn (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Iqinn has offered this opinion in multiple other afds. And I have offered the opinion that merging and redirecting these articles to the individuals alleged to have attended these camps is a dis-service for readers, because the wikipedia's readers should be able to look up a known camp, in the context of a list of all known camps, and compare what is known about, let's say, the Moroccan training camp, and compare it with the information known about other similar camps.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is not a "dis-service". It is not up to us to draw associations by clustering minor informations that are based on "primary sources" and where we have secondary sources that contradict our personal conclusions and associations. Do you have another list that mention this camp?? The Moroccan training camp is not mentioned in your military paper:  ***(they list all mayor camps and minor camps) That this camp here in not listed in this paper is good reason that we should not draw our own conclusions based on WP:OR. Why didn't they mention this camp here? They overlooked it? I do not know. They will have had there reasons why they did not mentioned it and we rely on the their judgment and conclusions and we do not do WP:OR. This is not a "dis-service" it is service that guarantees our reader that we do not draw possible false conclusions that are not verified and even here have been contradicted by a source. Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan is still the right choice. IQinn (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have already addressed the serious misconception that the memos are "primary sources".
 * As I wrote above the Moroccan camp is not mentioned in the Felter paper's list of other camps because the Felter paper was based on a review of memos drafted in 2004, and the Moroccan camp was mentioned in a memo drafted in 2005. Other than calling the 2005 memo a "primary source" no one has explained why that memo shouldn't be considered just as valid a WP:RS for the DoD's position that there was a Moroccan training camp in Afghanistan, during the Taliban's regime, as the Felter paper.
 * Presenting information from verifiable WP:RS, using a neutral point of view, without inserting novel conclusions, not present in the WP:RS, is not original research. If you are so sure there is a lapse from WP:OR then please identify the specific passage or passages you believe lapse from compliance.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied and shown above that these are primary sources.
 * I have shown also above that your claim is false. The Felter papers included these transcripts with the "Moroccan camp(s)". That they do not list a "Moroccan camp" in their paper is proof that we also should not do this.
 * WP:RS is the minor problem here. The problem is that they hardly verify anything in connection of the topic of this article here.
 * As this here once again is slipping into an filibustering waste of time and i do not see much progress and effort from your site. Please take your pick and make exactly clear what you want to mere to exactly what article. (It is not that much and we have already agreed on a merge.) I took my pick some time ago and so you should. Time to stop this fillibuster waste of time so people can get back to work. That get's a bit disruptive recently. IQinn (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking the points of the previous respondent, in order, I accept, at face value, that they honestly believe they have offered policy-based arguments that the OARDEC memos are not WP:RS. I ask in return for them to offer a diff to just one instance of a policy-based explanation why the OARDEC memo should not be considered WP:RS.  I regard arguments that the credibility of their contents have challengers as irrelevant, per WP:VER.
 * The Felter paper is an WP:RS, so is the 2005 allegation memo prepared for Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan's 2005 status review hearing. Neither is enough to substantiate a whole article.  Either is enough to substantiate a sentence of list entry in a broader article on the general topic of camps that are alleged to have trained suspected terrorists.
 * The WP:RS in question says little, not enough for a full article, but enough for a sentence or list entry in a larger article.
 * WRT "filibustering" -- disagreeing with you is not an act of bad faith, and should not open me up to insults. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The OARDEC memos are low quality primary sources less valuable than court papers. They still can be used in a limited way and with a lot of care.
 * So?
 * So?
 * Sure and to point someone to fillibuster is also not an act of bad faith. Be more open for critic and you may learn something. IQinn (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. A single ref is a judicial transcript, containing a couple of one-sentence vague mentions of the topic. Basically, as non-notable as a subject could possibly be. Nothing to merge here and nothing is even worthy of a redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Change to delete and i suggest the creator should "Userfy" it until there are more sources and information. Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball. IQinn (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reason as Articles for deletion/Al Qaida artillery and preps camp: In the source, "a Moroccan training camp" is merely descriptive and not a proper noun. If there were a number of these Moroccan training camp"s, called that by reliable sources, then the descriptive term might be worthy of an article. But there's no evidence of that. To put it another way, if a reliable source reported that a notable person attended "a Vermont prep school", that doesn't merit a Vermont prep school article. First Light (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm answering Geo Swann's question on my talk page. I don't believe that a single mention of a vaguely stated Vermont prep school (to continue my analogy above) is worthy of a merge or mention in any Wikipedia article. If the vague mention became specific, and in multiple reliable sources, then that would be another question. First Light (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my position this camp, and other less well documented camps, should be covered in Afghan training camp, or a similarly broader article. But I think if you look at this you may change your mind that there was a single vague mention.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The best approach would be to userfy the material, so that the original editor could merge it on his own time schedule (if there's anything worth merging), 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  12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My sentiment exactly. Userfying is the only reasonable option here. As far as I can tell, the same user, Geo Swan has created literally dozens of these "training camp" articles, each one being based on one-two brief mentions of a camp (or a suspected camp) in the Guantanamo Admin Review Board transcripts. Each one manifestly fails WP:GNG, but they have all been sitting in the mainspace for years. Geo Swan did create a global "merge proposal" back in March of this year, which he mentions above and in reply to your post, for dealing with this veritable plethora of "training camp" articles. I think he mentions this merge proposal in every training camp related AfD, and at one of the current DRVs, and I have seen him mention it to a number of closing admins who closed these AfDs as "delete", lamenting the fact that the proposal has attracted basically no participation since it was created on March 29. Of course, the reason is that nobody here, except for Geo Swan, seems to share his abiding passion for collecting even the most minor and obscure mentions of terrorist training camps in Guantanamo transcripts. By creating this multitude of extremely non-notable "traning camp" articles in mainspace, Geo Swan has created a problem of significant magnitude, and he is not really in the position to complain now that nobody else in the community wants to invest their time and effort in sifting through all this material and trying to make order out of chaos. The only reasonable, the only sane solution here is to move all these articles from the mainspace into Geo Swan's userspace and let him slowly deal with this material on his own schedule (and if at some point in the future someone else shows up willing to get heavily involved in this as well, then great).  Nsk92 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that User:SPhilbrick regarded my initial reply as non-responsive. They posted a followup question (thanks).  I trust they find my 2nd response answers their concerns.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 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.