Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 July 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 as no concensus; this article has been under AfD almost continuously since 23 May 2010 over this and 2 previous AfD's all started by the same user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fand training camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG. All previous Afd's have shown this and i think nobody doubts this fact. So i do believe that consensus for delete has been reached. I think the only point left is to discuss if there should be an redirection. A redirection to Afghan training camp could be misleading as we do not have WP:RS that verifies that this camp was an militant training camp or that it was linked to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Al this is not verified. I suggest to redirect to Khalid al-Asmr as all (the little) information of the article is covered there. IQinn (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets run a little test using the WP Notability-General Notability Guidelines, shall we?

Significant Coverage: Source addresses the subject directly in detail (marginally), and has no original research. Pass
Reliable: Sources have editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Pass
Sources: Has reliable sources. Pass
Independent of the Subject: Does not include sources affiliated with the subject. (Yes and no. It references a single transcript, from the US Military. However, the document was obtained from an independent source. Marginal Pass
Presumed: Significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption that the subject is suitable for inclusion. Pass

Granted, the article needs improvement, but it passes WP:GNG. Keep. --ANowlin: talk 02:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is false. And putting it in bold won't make it true.
Significant Coverage: One mentioning by one source does not add up to Significant Coverage. Fail.
Sources: Has only one Source that mention the camp with one sentence. “The detainee attended the al Fand training camp.”. No other information. No other sources. Fail.
Presumed: There is no Significant coverage. Just one sentence in one source. Fail.
Fails WP:GNG The article can not be improved as there are no sources since many years. You found new sources? Please show them to us. Wikipedia is not a crystal WP:BALL. IQinn (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that you are most likely relative new to Wikipedia so i would also like to point you to WP:VERIFY in addition to the other policies that i have mentioned. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that basically nothing is known about the camp is an indicator that we probably shouldn't have an article about it. Claritas § 10:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge - I am an inclusionist, but if there are no sources, we can't do anything. I had a look and found nothing obvious; of course if something comes out, I am welcome to review my !vote. If the single source can be used to provide coverage in another article I would be happy. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in RSs. Fails WP:N nableezy - 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Per ANowlin.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your !vote looks a bit like WP:ILIKEIT to me rather than based on real policies. Afd's are decided by the strength of the arguments rather than voting. It has been shown that ANowlin's arguments are false. So you might explain yourself where your !vote is based on. IQinn (talk)

Not at all. Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "per", as used above. What it means, in longer hand, is "as stated in greater detail by the esteemed editor ANowlin, who articulated the same reasons I have in mind in such an erudite manner that it would be a waste not only of my time but of all other readers for me to repeat what he said, whether in precisely the same words or in slightly different words of much the same import". WP:ILIKEIT, of course, "looks" quite different. As to what I do like, by the way, I would include the fact that both the New York Times and The Washington Post, two publications on the cusp of RS-hood, have mention of it. You've now made a number of mis-statements at this AfD. First, as to what my !vote looks like. Second, your above "it has been shown" statement. Third, your "I'm sorry" statements -- if you are so sorry, I can't understand why you continue to make mis-statements and mis-characterizations. Fourth, your various assumptions in the nomination, as to what I (and other editors) doubt, or view worthy of discussion, etc. Happy Fourth. (and please take this as advice as to the meaning of "per" at AfDs where I am !voting).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to list the sources that give this supposed training camp anything more than a trivial mention, also known as "significant coverage"? (and the NYTimes does not "mention it", the only thing I can find from them is a copy of the Combatant Status Review Board's summary of evidence, which is not exactly the same thing as the NYTimes covering it) nableezy - 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it would be helpful if you could list these sources. You just added this reference to the article what is an unreliable source that just mirrors the Wikipedia article. See also WP:CIRCULAR. I do not believe that anybody can claim "significant coverage" based on such sources. I removed this from the article. IQinn (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have preferred to see the previous AfD to have taken to DRV (in that AfD even the article's creator has agreed that there is not enough coverage for the stand-alone article on the topic to exist, so it really should have been closed as "delete"). As it is, there is nothing in the nature of significant and detailed coverage of this camp by independent sources. At most we have a few brief mentions. As noted above, the NYT ref does not really qualify as "coverage" by NYT - rather they posted a copy of some official documents - certainly not the same as if a journalist wrote an article at least mentioning the camp. Moreover, there is a long-established WP convention that judicial documents, such as trial transcripts, court opinions etc, do not qualify as "coverage" for WP:GNG purposes, even though they may be used for WP:V purposes. I think the same principle applies to official judicial documents like the Combatant Status Review Board transcripts. Nsk92 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated, and interesting, and along the lines (to the extent I agree) why I !voted week keep rather than keep or strong keep. (BTW -- perhaps a merge should be considered as an alternative, if there is a likely merge-to article ... that would then be my second choice). I believe there is a stark difference in a subject as to which the NYT and WSJ publishes an article linking to it. Such a subject is surely far more notable than that to which the NYT and WSJ provide no such link. Were a court case to be the only "coverage", I would agree with your above comments. Where the "court" is the CSRB, I have a different view -- those "cases" are all, IMHO, notable, and differ greatly from just any court case, which are of far greater number and could of course include such non-notable disputes as my neighbor's dog urinating on my property.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Iquinn correctly observed, there is in fact a grand total of one source (and even that one is a judicial transcript, not a news-article), that even mentions this camp, and even that mention consists of only a single sentence. This is miles away from justifying a weak keep in terms of notability, and, IMO, does not merit even a redirect, not to mention a merge. Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Anowlin and Sulmues correctly observed ... we differ. But I hear your viewpoint.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point we differ in is that your arguments are not always based on sources or facts. Now you come out and claim the camp is an al Qaeda camp??

To make this clear (what has been made clear already):This here is the only source and information we know about the camp in the whole universe.

To continuously claim that this would be "significant coverage" and now to claim that the camp was an al Qaeda camp based on this source is simply false and harms our reputation as an reliable encyclopedia. Sure i know you are a long term contributor and i am sure you did it in good faith but i urge you to be more careful as this all is basically an allegation against a living person and to wrongly associate somebody with al Qaeda is an serious issue.

I removed this from the article. IQinn (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per convincing argumentation of user:Anowlin. You may rename it as a hoax, if you prove it as such, but the article should stay. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is rich: "You may rename it as a hoax, if you prove it as such". Whatever happened to WP:V and all that? Nsk92 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the "convincing argumentation of user:Anowlin", you should read Iquinn's rebuttle below Anowlin's argument more carefully. There is a grand total of one source that mentions the camp at all, and even that mention consists of a single sentence. This is far far below satisfying any reasonable notability threshold. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT#NEWS seems relevant. Hype about interrogations and (quasi-)court room dramas can be encyclopedic if sourced by multiple, independent, third-party sources. This subject does not have that. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor mention in a minor primary citation. as close to the same encyclopedic value as a hoax as you could get Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- For some reason the wiki-id User:Iqinn, who nominated this article for its 2nd, 3rd and 4th {{afd}} did not inform the article creator (that's me) of this nomination. I realize the {{afd}} has almost run its course. However, given that I did not have an opportunity to participate, I am requesting now that it be relisted, not closed. I wrote to the administrator who closed the 3rd {{afd}} with concerns I had about whether the individual who made the 3rd nomination should have initiated a 4th nomination less than an hour after the closure of the 3rd nomination. I asked them if the nominator shouldn't have contacted them for a fuller explanation, and if they weren't satisfied with that explanation initiated a review at {{drv}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this AfD being relisted rather than closed. This may end up at DRV anyway, but a clearer picture of consensus would certainly be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do the nominations with Twinkle and you should automatically get an notification. For sure you got one for the 2th and 3th but it seems Twinkle notification does not work always and i know you are subscribed to the article. Why don't you just make your point? You know the case and the arguments have been clearly laid out here and in the discussions before. I am sorry but after all that disruptive fillibustering i can only say. No good reason given for re-listing. IQinn (talk) 23:43, 13 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.

P.S. There are current discussions about text-merging page Al Fand training camp to page Afghan training camp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]