Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pul Sayad Compound

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning by one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article are already present in the article Mohammed Yacoub. IQinn (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other {{afd}} they recently initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toran training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kut Bakram training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talukan training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Saiaf training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge. I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged. I suggested merging, back then. I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June [1] -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here. In another similar {{afd}} our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps. Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps. This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself. If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps. I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this {{afd}} of the previous proposals. Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Geo.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator, and because there's absolutely nothing verifiable to merge. I don't consider one American government source which may well be biased or inaccurate, considering the state of affairs in Afghanistan to be a) an indication of notability and b) sufficiently reliable to infer that the camp exists. If the camp's existence is uncertain, we really shouldn't have any content which suggests it does. Claritas § 21:44, 9 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.