Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karabakh 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. The delete !voters make the stronger argument. The subject doesn't have enough independent significant coverage Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Mentioned in a couple of US givernment documents, never the topic of a text (or even a paragraph), hasn't received any independent attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N as per nom. Has also some BLP issues as these are all serious allegations solely based on the primary sources without a single secondary source for the necessary interpretation. IQinn (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taliban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable, Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. Your link shows that the article fails WP:N. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that could establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Which of these results is about the Karabakh camp? That two separate words appear in a number of sources (e.g. as part of Nagorno-Karabakh) doesn't mean that the actual subject has received any indepth attention. Fram (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails notability. Google search shows names, yet does not reference the "camp" referenced in the primary sources. The subject has not been covered by secondary sources.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TB base is notable. Coverage exists eg http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/526-yakub-abahanov . MLA (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your source does not cover the camp and is the same that is already used in the article. Still fails WP:N by a very large margin. IQinn (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. It would probably be fair enough to make mention of the camp in a relevant parent article, but it seems excessive to create a separate article in this case, when it seems like very little is actually known about it. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2011 (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.