Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy

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 just don't see the reliable sources here for an article. If they do exist, I will consider undeletion. Note that this just applies for now to Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy, as the AFD notice was never put on the other articles. W.marsh 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy

Not a notable report. Having looked this up, if you do a simple Wikipedia search excluding both the words Wikipedia and blog, to exclude ourselves and unacceptable sources, we end up with just the NY Times referencing the report (once) and a lone university reference. See here. A news search with the same parameters reveals nothing. We have nothing, in essence, besides it's own self as a primary source, and the lone NY Times trivial reference. Delete as non-notable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect kinda, the source itself could be used on an appropriate page. Speciate 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where...? • Lawrence Cohen 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. No significant discussion by multiple independent reliable sources. -- But|seriously|folks 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. I suspect this exists only to support Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cruftbane 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request that the following articles be nominated together:

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
Currently nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
No-hearing hearings
Mark Denbeaux

My opinion: that they be merged, per not forking content of articles, into Seton Hall reports, currently a disambiguation page to articles above, which is the the name under which their subject meets WP:N:

this request also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda--victor falk 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. Mr. Denbeaux might be notable enough for his own article however. Steve Dufour 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The findings reported in the report should be cited in another article. However the report itself is not notable. Steve Dufour 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Seton Hall reports. Not notable on it's own, and could probably be shortened to fit into the main article per WP:CFORK Bfigura ^(talk) 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 11:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything into ~~Seton Hall report per victor falk and Bfigura ^(talk). Only then is it possible to discuss its notability --Brewcrewer 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Mark Denbeaux. Everything branches out of him. --Brewcrewer 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or only a partial-merge: You're mistaken about the Google search. Search for "Denbeaux study" and you'll see that it was notable enough that West Point did their own version to debunk it. I could see a partial merge of the lesser ones, but the main Denbeaux study deserves its own article. It was once a popular topic for a few leftist blogs. I strongly recommend naming that back to "Denbeaux study" (the original name), and putting "Denbeaux" in the names of the companion articles. Please DO NOT call any of them "Seton Hall Report." They're best known under the name Denbeaux, and some at Seton Hall probably don't deserve to be associated with the Denbeauxs. -- Randy2063 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, you need to adjust your search to this version, and click through to the end. Exclude all Wikipedia sites, all other Wikis, and all blogs, as they are unacceptable sources, click through to the last page for a true-ish count, which leaves us 20 hits. • Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the shame is really on me. I see that "Seton Hall study" finds more. That said, I will still shamelessly prefer calling it the "Denbeaux study." As for blogs, they're not good for sources but I think they should count in determining notablility. -- Randy2063 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really shouldn't. Anyone can go out and start any number of blogs and fill them with any kind of content. They don't do anything to establish notability.--Crossmr 04:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, "Denbeaux report" finds hundreds more. -- Randy2063 23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Mark Denbeaux takes the cake!--Brewcrewer 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but we could also just file everything under "Guantanamo" if we wanted to. -- Randy2063 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. I thought the question was to which one of the three aforementioned articles should the other two be merged into?--Brewcrewer 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being facetious to make a point. -- Randy2063 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if from Mark Denbeaux, Seton Hall study, and Denbeaux study, Mark Denbeaux gets the most ghits and everything under discussion originates from him, so why not make him the main page??--Brewcrewer 07:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, strong merge into [[[Seton Hall reports]]. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge -- today I opt for merge. Geo Swan 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seton Hall report. Merge the other spin-offs as well. The article is borderline notable, so reluctant to delete, but the article contains insufficient context. Perhaps with improvement, especially the addition of sourced commentary, the article might be split off again. --SmokeyJoe 13:37, 25 October 2007 (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.