Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. After multiple relists and reading the previous AFD, I still do not believe any headway has been made towards a consensus for anything as of yet. –MuZemike 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fand training camp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. IQinn (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ -- I think I offered an excellent reason, duruing the recently closed {{afd}} as to why rather than nominating articles on individual training camps there should be a central discussion of the common issues of all the related training camps. I am very sorry to report that our nominator always flatly refuses to enter into any central discussions, when there are common issues shared by some of the articles we both edit. Geo Swan (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This nomination incorporates a misconception common to many of the other instances when our nominator has nominated articles I started for deletion. Our nominator routinely misinterprets the term "independent of the subject". If the article was citing something written by the staff, trainees or sponsors of the Al Fand camp, then it would be accurate to say those references were not "indepdendent of the subject". But, from the way our nominator uses this term, it seems they think any document that mentions a topic is not "independent" of the topic -- without regard to who authored the document. If we were to use this interpretation of this term then none of our references would be "independent of the subject". Geo Swan (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you are the creator of this article and nobody likes his article to be deleted but i do not think you have provided us with an excellent reason why we should ignore our basic policies because you personally have a special interest.
- One mentioning in one document does not add up to "significant coverage" and therefore it fails the basic requirement for inclusion WP:GNG. Could you please address this argument. IQinn (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On several other occasions you have stated or implied that I was being paid to subvert the wikipedia, by trying to sneak in "propaganda". If your reference to my "special interest" is intended to imply, again, that I am in a conflict of interest, that I am a paid employee, or contractor, or similar, then I repeat, again, that I am not in a conflict of interest. I am not being paid by anyone, to cottribute to the wikipedia. I am not a volunteer for any organization that has an interest in pushing a POV. I am just another hard-working volunteer who has done his best to write from a neutral point of view.
  - I believe I have already indicated my acceptance that some of the articles on training camps should be merged. I continue to believe it would be far better to discuss which of those articles on those camps should be merged in a central discussion. I know you are aware that I suggested previously that the training camps were the 9-11 hijackers were alleged to have trained merit separate articles. What needs to be decided is the demarcation -- the dividing line between those that merit separate articles, and those that don't. Your individual, separate, disconnected nominations make determining the dividing line in an intelligent, well-organized way essentially impossible.
  - I continue to be mystified and disappointed by your surprising general reluctance to engage in central discussions of common issues when they are shared by related articles. And I repeat my request that you reconsider your blanket refusals. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am mystified as to why you would suggest that I am trying to get us to "ignore our basic policies". Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Afd is the central place to discuss. One mentioning in one document just does not add up to "significant coverage" that's why this article fails WP:N, WP:GNG. I am surprise that you keep fillibustering without addressing this argument. IQinn (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. GoogleNews and GoogleBooks show almost nothing of relevance. Does not pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular camp is not widely covered. But the general phenomenon that 181 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified, in part, due to allegations that they received training at an underground camp, like this one, is very widely covered. And for this reason I encourage you to reconsider your "delete" opinion, and consider a "merge" instead, to an article on the general phenomenon. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries". Combating Terrorism Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-08-30.
- - This particular camp in not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that you provide here nor anywhere else. The source that you provide here list all notable and even the less notable training camps in their paper. That Al Fand training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until their is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, I am in agreement with Iquinn. (Incidentally, the merge proposal is not implementable at the moment anyway since no target article for the merge has been suggested). In addition to what Iquinn said, a merge is only appropriate if there is a significant amount of material in the article in question that might need to be merged. This is not the case here, as the article consists of a single short paragraph. A merge is not warranted here and, at the most, a "delete and redirect" may be appropriate, if a plausible target for a redirect is suggested. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:RS do support the existence of the Al Fand training camp, but those WP:RS do not go into enough detail to support an article. While the existing references do not go into enough detail to support an individual article, I suggest they do support coverage of the camp in a more general article. As to the target for a merge -- we have an article Afghan training camps. Alternately, the bar chart I included above names eleven camps, and has bars for them, indicating how many captives attended them. It has a twelfth bar, for "Other". That bar shows something like 80 captives are suspected of attending camps not attended by many other captives -- at least under that name. So, an alternate target would be something like: Militant training camps allegedly attended by suspected terrorists or Militant training camps allegedly attended by Guantanamo internees. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said before, I am opposed to a merge closure and believe that a plain "delete" (or perhaps "delete and redirect") is appropriate here. The article which is the subject of this AfD is very short, just three brief sentences. There is really nothing to merge here. As a form of an AfD closure, "merge" is only appropriate if the article under discussion contains a significant amount of verifiable information, which is not the case here. If you want to mention something about this camp in the Afghan training camps, you should take it to Talk:Afghan training camps or be bold and just add a couple of sentences about the camp to the Afghan training camps article and see if anyone objects. But this does not require and does not warrant a merge. Nsk92 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As pointed out, the report where your graph was taken from list other camps - Al Fand training camp is not mentioned once in the whole report.
        
        We have only one source that mention the the term Al Fand training camp without any explanation or further information.
        
        We do not have any WP:RS that explains what kind of camp this was.
        
        We do not have any WP:RS that this camp even existed.
        
        We do not have any WP:RS that Al Fand training camp was an Militant training camp. No WP:RS for these claims at all. Sorry for putting this in bold, this is not shouting it is just something that needed to make clear.
        
        Delete with no redirect to something that is not clearly supported by WP:RS is the only option here unless we want to create and allow misleading associations into our encyclopedia. IQinn (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Upon looking at the sources closer, I agree with IQuinn. Just plain "delete" here, with no merges and no redirects. Nsk92 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You looked at the bar chart? You read that the Felter article listed an additional 27 camps? Other references list camps not listed in that reference. Which articles merit individual articles, which don't merit individual articles, but do merit a paragraph, or sentence in an article about the general phenomenon of these camps being used as a justification for continued detention -- and whether some should simply be totally forgotten. You seem to have taken the position that this particular camp merits being totally forgotten. OK, what would be your position about a camp for which we have WP:RS from which we can only substantiate a single individual being alleged to have trained there -- but where the allegations were more detailed, and claimed the individual was trained in the preparation and use of IEDs, poisons and assassination techniques? What about the camps where several captives were alleged to have trained? What about the camps alleged to have been directed by individuals identified elsewhere as senior al Qaeda lieutenants? I continue to think our nominator's piecemeal individual nominations were a mistake because they stripped the discussion of necessary context. Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, as our nominator acknowledges, we have a source that asserts a Guantanamo captive attended the Al Fand Training Camp. We know the allegation the captive attended the camp was considered a sufficient justification, at least in part, for years of extrajudicial detention. With regard to the assertion that we don't know the camp even existed -- so what? It is possible that the existence of this camp was a sick fantasy on the part of incompetent analysts. Maybe this is what our nominator is suggesting. In America's old colonial period local authorities conducted the Salem witch trials, which were based on sick fantasies. We cover allegations even when we know they are based on sick fantasies. There used to be the Luminiferous aether theory of light. We don't stop covering scientific theories, supported by WP:RS, when they are widely considered disproved. We don't fail to cover theories widely considered to be crackpot theories -- when they have been covered in WP:RS.
        
        Our nominator challenges whether the American counter-terrorism analysts have taken the position that this was a "militant" training camp. This strikes me as a "prove the sky is blue" kind of objection. Without regard to explicit proof that this was considered a "militant" traing camp, we know that alleged attendance at this camp was considered suspicious enough that attendance was offered as a justification, at least in part, for years of extrajudicial detention. What other kind of training camp, other than a military training camp, would be offered as a justification for continued detention? I dunno -- maybe a camp for training fiery preachers? Military camp, preacher camp, some other dangerous camp -- whatever kind of camp, if it was used as a justification for holding men in Guantanamo, then it is worth coverage in Afghan training camp.
        
        Our nominator's final objection above, contains a serious misinterpretation of policy. They wrote: "Delete with no redirect to something that is not clearly supported by WP:RS is the only option here unless we want to create and allow misleading associations into our encyclopedia." Our nominator and I have a long correspondence. They routinely assert that material that cites valid WP:RS, and, IMO, is written from a neutral point of view, has to be excised because it will leave readers with "the wrong impression". That is what I think they mean with their claim a redirect to Afghan training camp, and a mention in that article, is allowing "misleading associations". Our nominator's position is that we should try to tailor and direct the conclusions our readers arrive at -- not allow them to reach their own conclusions. This is advocacy. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. Our personal interpretation of the reliability of what our WP:RS assert is irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the countless uncivil ad hominum parts of the comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan and continues fillibustering i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times more. This has been IMO become disruptive to the work here.
        
        No we do not know all of this and we do not have WP:RS for it. Not at all. We can make a guess where the camp was located. We may guess what kind of camp it was. We can guess if this allegation played a role in the detention. We can guess if the camp ever existed. We can guess that it was run by the Taliban. We can guess that it belonged to al Qaeda. We may guess that is was a Militant training camp. But the fact is we do not know and we do not have WP:RS to verify any of these claims.
        
        The only single WP:RS that does exist is well covered in Khalid al-Asmr. No need for anything else. Surely not a redirection that is based on guesses and not on what WP:RS verifies.
        
        This article has been created years ago without sufficient WP:RS. It had a tag for a very long time that told the creator that there is no sufficient WP:RS. This is now the third AfD where it was shown that there is no sufficient WP:RS. Nevertheless continues pushing for keeping the article without providing sufficient WP:RS and then continues pushing for a redirection without providing sufficient WP:RS has become disruptive. I highly suggest that an administrator with guts simply closes this AfD and speedy delete this article as we should not leave Wikipedia to filibuster and those who try to push their views against the rules of the community. But that is just my personal opinion. IQinn (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I drafted a proposal, over three months ago about what to do with the articles on What to do with Afghan training camps. In that proposal I explained that I drafted most of these articles in 2006 or 2007, when I expected additional references would emerge. I acknowledged that, for most of the camps additional references haven't emerged. I proposed then that most of these articles should be merged to an article on all the less well attended camps. The "speedy keep" I initially placed represents an instance when I responded emotionally, and forgot I was already on record as suggesting merge for articles like this. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.