Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Captured on the battlefield

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep - However, it would seem that the whole of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo (and sub pages) may be worth looking at again in the future. But for now, I gave WP:USER more weight in this case. Since we should presume that this information is being assimilated with the goal of proper and accurate article building. Which is common practice. (Though, as a gesture of goodwill, it might not be a bad idea if User:Geo Swan maintained the less-than-active pages in a blanked state - Though that is of course not mandated by this closure at this time.) - jc37 07:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Captured on the battlefield
Three year old WP:FAKEARTICLE with no chance of becoming a real article due to the very limited scope and the WP:OR it is based on, with things like "Captives who could meaningfully be described as having been "captured on a battlefield", even if it seems likely they were just innocent bystanders." Fram (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Three years is more than enough time for a userspace draft to be expanded, improved, and moved to the mainspace. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cunard and the fact that it is based solely on a single primary source. - IQinn (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That has only one source sounds like a reason to keep it in user space, not a reason to delete...  -Addionne (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A single primary source, not a single independent source. Fram (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. These are notes, not an article - and certainly not a WP:FAKEARTICLE with all the clear markings that it is a user page and a draft.  It is reasonable to think that this information and source would be useful for an article that exists (Omar Mohammed Ali Al Rammah, for instance) or may exist in the future.  Despite the nominator's claims on this and related articles in Geo Swan's userspaces, there is no requirement in WP:UP that states that content can only be kept in userspace if it is to become an article.  It clearly states in WP:FAKEARTICLE that content can be used appropriately in other relevant articles.  Also, I find nowhere in WP:UP that states that incomplete or poor sourcing is a reason to delete someone's notes.  -Addionne (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blindly believing what Geo claims I have claimed. Could you please provide a link where I have actually done such a thing? And could you otherwise perhaps retract said claim? As for your other reasons, WP:OR can never be useful for an article that exists or that may exist in the future. Every article in Geo Swan's userspace is marked as a "user page" and as a "draft". Note that this doesn't mean that FAKEARTICLE doesn't apply. Note also that this was done on all these pages by User:Iqinn, against the wishes of Geo Swan''. Fram (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not "blindly believing" anything. Your nomination above clearly states: ...with no chance of becoming a real article...  It seems reasonable to interpret this as one of the reasons for your nomination, or you wouldn't have mentioned it.  Also, whether or not the page contains a snippet of writing that might be a violation of WP:SYN, that guideline, as well as the rest of WP:OR says that all material added to articles must be attributable.  This remains on his subpage; and so I don't think applies here.  -Addionne (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You wanted a "strong keep" because "content can be used appropriately in other relevant articles." Now you are claiming that it remains on his subpage. It can hardly be both... Fram (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am claiming that the WP:SYN-violating writing style shouldn't make it to an article as-is. The remaining information, notes and source could reasonably make it to an article someday in a more neutral context.  -Addionne (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the three OARDEC sources are already in the article, so they can hardly make it into the article again... The rest is WP:OR, with a POV clearly seen in the page title and the additional, longer section subtitle. The whole purpose of this page is to have yet another location to store some of his WP:OR. There are numerous userspace subpages by Geo Swan I don't nominate, because they don't violate BLP, aren't (yet) abandoned fakearticles, or otherwise don't violate our user space regulations (e.g. something like User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/documents/Clipping echo). But keeping content that wouldn't have a chance as an article, doesn't have a chance to be added to another article either, and is as a page not a neutral set of notes or links either, but a slanted, POV, OR version, is not supported by policy. Fram (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Those of us that have watched Geo work on these page sets for years, appreciate his keeping his research information on-wiki, as it makes his processes clearer (and can be useful pointers for other researchers). I see no reason to think these are "fake articles" or that this is being used as a "web-host" in any useful sense of the word. To understand Geo's user-space pages you need a rudimentary understanding of the Guantanamo processes, in particular that phrases often cropped up in CRTs, apparently linking various events.  These have been analysed by third parties and are hence not OR.  AGF tells us to assume that Geo is putting the rider on the title to avoid BLP type issues, I.E. to avoid casting these people as "enemy combatants", despie the G'mo characterisation. If the phrasing is deemed unsatisfactory it is easy to fix. Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC).


 * And is so fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment - Actually, i do not know if everybody noticed. We have an main space article about this. Guantanamo Bay detainees captured on the battlefield. IQinn (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed this. The article is older than the page nominated for deletion, so a history merge is not needed. The actual article is an abandoned, three year old incomplete article/list that may well warrant further scrutiny for similar OR as in this userspace copy. But I still don't see any reason to keep this userspace article around any longer. Fram (talk) 13:04, 15 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.