Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Jalalabad

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 judge there to be consensus here that the known sources do not satisfy community norms concerning inclusion.  Skomorokh  12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspect guest house, Jalalabad

Suspect guest house, Jalalabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Guest houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that contrary to claims by certain users on similar AfDs I have no idealogical feelings I'm trying to push, and I am not trying to censor the wiki - I simply want to demand of these articles the same standards we demand for everything else. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sigh, this again. Please withdraw your unwarranted personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems to me that this article rests precariously on only primary sources, which, given that they call the guest houses "suspected" can't really be said to be reliable. So there is a WP:Verifiability problem. Also, the article says nothing more than "[person we have an article on] may have stayed in [ad hoc name] guest house". If we had an article on a mafiosi snitch, and somebody made an article entitled Suspected safe house, Baltimore, which stated that, prior to his testimony, the mafiosi stayed in an FBI safe house somewhere in Baltimore, such an article would be deleted without mercy. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, are you sure that the summary of evidence memos drafted for the Guantanamo captives' review proceedings should be considered primary sources? An interrogation log is a primary source. A transcript is a primary source. But these memos were drafted by author who reviewed, interpreted and summarized multiple documents from at least half a dozen military and civilian agencies. I think that documents that summarize, collate, and interpret multiple documents are the canonical examples of secondary sources. The Baltimore safe house analogy is so strained I don't think it is useful to address here -- so I will comment on it elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, these memos are primary sources. They are DoD legal documents that are allegedly findings of fact, not analytical. Abductive (reasoning) 08:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry. No offense, but you are absolutely incorrect, on several points. First, you call the references "DoD legal documents". The DoD's official position was that the Guantanamo CSR Tribunals and annual reviews were not legal procedures -- many captives asked why they weren't allowed legal counsel at the Tribunals, and they were all routinely told they weren't provided with lawyers because they were "administrative procedures". Second,, you write that the references are "allegedly findings of fact, not analytical." Please read the affidavit written by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham. Abraham is a reservists called up for a hitch with the OARDEC. Although he is a lawyer in civilian life he is an intelligence analyst when on duty. Read his affidavit, and you will see, again and again, how the summaries were flawed because those tasked to analyze and summarize a large volume of documents from other agencies lacked the training and experience to perform that analysis effectively. Here is the master list of documents. The full unclassified dossiers from 179 captives' CSR Tribunals have been published. Those dossiers each contain a decision memo, which summarizes the documents that were analyzed, collated and summarized. The corresponding decision memos from several hundred of the annual reviews have been published. You need only review a couple of those to verify for yourself that the authors of the OARDEC memos reviewed, analyzed and summarized documents from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, Southern Command, the Office of Military Commissions, in addition to the Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained.  RGTraynor  17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No offense, but I'd like to suggest you are misquoting the requirements for the references we need. WRT "third party", if this article cited brochures published by these guesthouses, or the guesthouses online web-pages, those citations would not be third party references. Newspaper references would be third party, as would UN reports, or reports from a country like the USA. FWIW I have found a handful of Afghan guesthouses -- those that cater to foreign journalists or aid workers -- that do have web-sites. WRT "reliable sources" in all other articles government sources are taken as reliable -- reliable in that whatever they assert is the government's official position. You mention WP:V, a very important policy. If we are going to comply with WP:V we have to set aside our own personal interpretation of the credibility of what our references state. No offense, but it seems to me that your challenge to the reliability of these references is really a challenge to the credibility of what the references assert, and, as such, a lapse from WP:V. I am sure it is an inadvertent lapse however. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not challenging the reliability of the sources. I am challenging whether they are "Reliable Sources" per WP:RS, when the definition of a "reliable sources" is a source that substantively discusses the subject in question. It has long been held, and you have been around long enough to know this full well, that (using this article as an example) a sentence saying no more than "The detainee stayed in a Uighur guesthouse in Jalalabad" does not constitute substantive discussion of much of anything at all. Is this source about a particular "suspect guest house" in Jalalabad? No. Is this source about "suspect guest houses" at all? No. Do any of the sources discuss "suspect guest houses" in any substantive detail? No. Do the sources then qualify under WP:RS? No. I hope and trust you've rethought your inadvertent lapse.  RGTraynor  02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Sherurcij and I don't generally agree on conclusions, but I do agree that these pages are notable and merit keeping. The notability concern is misplaced, and the Google search is wrong. This obviously isn't about some ordinary person seeking free publicity.

First, the above suggested Google search for "Suspect guest house, Jalalabad" is incomplete. Not everyone who looks at this topic is going to think it's a "guest house" or that it's merely "suspected." I'd go with safehouse Jalalabad, which yields considerably more.

Second, the Google search on the "find sources" script used by the nominator puts quotes around the phrase. That makes it work only if the title is notable.

Moreover, this information is of value today. When news about a detainee comes out (such as finding that an ex-detainee is now out fighting again), it should be extremely interesting to find out which other detainees were at the same safe house, and whether they're also already out or being pushed for release.

I think Abductive is mistaken in his view of the word "suspected." They are definitely suspected of having been safehouses. That is true regardless whether those suspicions were considered reasonable by others. Even if lightning strikes and all the "guests" were suddenly proved innocent sheepherders, it should still be remembered that they were at one time suspected of being safehouses.

While secondary sources are a test for notability, they're only one test of the guideline. The guideline itself even includes "reports by government agencies." That's what this is anyway. The CSRTs are compilations of data for legal review, and not the original intelligence report. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"This obviously isn't about some ordinary person seeking free publicity." - yup, never suggested it was. Your argument hasn't addressed the key point - that this article fails WP:GNG. If the page is, as you suggest, notable, it should be able to pass the basic standard of being covered by multiple independent, third-party sources in significant detail. It does not; it is covered by multiple independent, third-party sources in brief mentions. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I have addressed it when I said, "While secondary sources are a test for notability, they're only one test of the guideline. The guideline itself even includes 'reports by government agencies.'" (Those last four words are a quote from the GNG guideline's footnotes.)

Your argument used the exact text of this article's name to imply this isn't a common topic. That's not a fair test because this article title is a compromise. In reality, there are plenty of safehouses in Jalalabad, but nobody calls them "Suspect guest house, Jalalabad."

Google returns 15,900 hits for "safehouse Jalalabad" (but without the quotes).

Furthermore, we have a number of links to this article. It's not an orphan.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"google has hits" is straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and the number of links to the article is completely irrelevant to its notability. You're misunderstanding my argument - the problem isn't that it isn't covered by sources, either primary or secondary - the problem is that it isn't covered in significant detail. The government reports make throwaway mentions while discussing things entirely separate from the guest house, and the information we do have consists entirely of "things people did at a guest house in jalalabad", because at no point is the guest house directly discussed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was you, with your "Find sources" link, who used the number of Google hits to say why you think it should be deleted. It's still right there at the top.

You also say U.S. government docs do not meet the requirement, and clearly they do.

Not every article on WP has or needs the detail you want. We have plenty of lists and timelines, and WP is better for it. This article is no different.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, that link is automatically created by twinkle when making an AfD page - I didn't chose to include it. Secondly, it's for suggesting a source of sources, as it were - it is not saying that lots of google hits = notability. Please read my concern more closely; I am not saying that US government docs do not meet the requirement, and I am not saying that lists are not useful, or worthy of inclusion - I am saying that these US government docs do not meet the requirements of "significant" coverage per WP:GNG as at no point do they address the subject in any kind of detail (or even directly) and that this is evidenced by the fact that a list of things done at this/these house(s) is all we can include. I would respectfully ask you to read my critique more carefully in future. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry that I just assumed the Google results were intentional. But I read the guideline again, and still disagree on notability.

Your mistake is in thinking this is trivial information. It may seem that way to you, but it's not.

It would indeed be trivial if we had the raw original interrogation logs, and we took from that the types of meals the detainees were fed during their sessions. But these sources are concise legal reports. Everything they put in there was there for a good reason.

It's an important part of the "Summary of Evidence" used to decide whether or not someone should be held in GTMO for another year. They don't put trivia into them. There are probably some detainees who could have been released if not what it said in that field.

On the flip side, there are probably some people now dead because a detainee was released when that field had a less unsavory name in it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You're missing the point. It isn't that these sources are "trivial" generally; they're often multi-hundred page documents. But these documents are not about the safe houses. In terms of the safe houses alone, they are indeed "trivial mentions" as Wikipedia defines them: they do not state where the houses are, they state no facts whatsoever about them except that terrorists are claimed to have stayed at a generic "guest" or "safe" house in X city. In order to qualify as a reliable source, a source must discuss the subject in "significant" detail. In any of these sources, where is the significant detail about these guest houses? Not about the terrorists, not about their activities, about the houses themselves? Nowhere.  RGTraynor  03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be a better point if the Summary of Evidence documents were often multi-hundred page documents. That would indicate they're a minor detail. But these are typically only one page. The PDF itself may have hundreds of pages, but that's because they're combined with those of other detainees.

In other words, judging by the size of this detail, it's more significant than you thought.

FWIW: The safe house info applies to 24% of detainees' CSRTs. The U.S. military believes it to be significant.

It's true that this article doesn't describe the quality of the accommodations, but that's not what this article is about. As I said, it's more like a list or timeline article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A single mention in a single line of a one-page document doesn't pass "significant" any more than it would if it was a multiple-page document. The article isn't a list, though - it's an article about the guest house, it's being portrayed as an article about the guest house, and at no point does it properly discuss the guest house. If the article was "list of things people did at a suspected guest house in jalalabad" then the references would be sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comparative size of the document clearly matters. The footnote on significant coverage compares books about a topic to a one sentence mention in a biography.

But this isn't only a single mention in a single line of one one-page document. It's a field used for every detainee known to have been in a safe house. In other words, it's multiple mentions throughout the detainee records that were used by the U.S. government to make these cases. You may not think it matters, but they do.

I don't care about a name change, but you can suggest one if you like. The term "Suspect guest house" was likely a compromise for giving a detainee some degree of presumption of innocence. No one came here expecting to find help making reservations.

We need to consider the ultimate users of this section of WP. You may not have an interest in the government's case, but others do. A lot of people believe GTMO detainees were simply taken off the streets for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If people genuinely want to know the reasons why detainees were held, they'll want a balanced picture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fig about what the US government cares about, or what people care about. We do not include non-notable content just because some people may find it useful, or because one person subjectively believes it's required to give a balanced view to a situation. The sources altogether add up to about 20 pages, of which we've got maybe a line every two pages that actually references a safe house. I'd say that falls into "plainly trivial", particularly since at no point is the guest house actually the subject. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are here for those who do care. This reminds me of when someone deleted an entire section on the Order of Battle in a Vietnam War operation, with names of participating ships and carrier wings, because it was "uninteresting" to him.

I don't particularly care about ceramics but that doesn't mean I go into the associated articles and look for stuff to delete based upon what I think isn't important. I leave it for those interested in ceramics to decide what should be here.

It's notable. It's just not notable to you.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're completely misunderstanding my point. I don't give a flying fig if you, the US Government and the entire Playboy calendar think it's notable if it doesn't pass WP:N. This was clearly set out in the comment you're replying to - again, I urge you to read what I write and actually answer my concern, to whit - it does not pass WP:GNG. Twelve lines in twenty pages is not enough for "significant", particularly when the twelve lines don't even have the guest house as the subject. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I get what you're saying now. I just don't agree that it doesn't pass WP:N. Those are 12 lines in short summary documents.

Admittedly, it is subjective. The guidelines only show extreme examples. I guess they decided to allow some wiggle room so that people who actually care about the subject can make their own determinations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Admitting to some bias? :P. 12 lines in short summary documents - 12 lines in 20 pages worth of short summary documents. 12 lines in 20 pages, none of which deal with the subject directly. Please explain how 12 lines discussing things that happened at the guest house, spread over 20 pages of report and transcript, is "significant coverage" of the safe house, particularly (and this is the crux of the matter) when not a single source directly addresses the house. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not "significant coverage" of the safe house itself. It is "significant coverage" of the safe house in relation to the detainees. The guidelines use a single line in a book as their obvious example of non-notability. This exceeds that.

The only thing in doubt is whether you think this topic is important without detailing the accommodations. I think it's important as it is.

I'll add that it would be satisfactory to me if we combined all the safe house lists into one. Of course, whatever annoys you about this article would probably annoy you just as much if it was combined. You obviously don't share my perspective on these things.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "annoyed" by the article, nor am I interested in sharing your perspective - unlike you, I prefer not to bring a bias and preconceived ideas about importance to the table. That's an incredibly poor argument - "the article gives one sentence in a book as an example of non-notability, this isn't a single sentence in a book, therefore it's notable"? So would two sentences in a book be acceptable, then? It doesn't give a hard-and-fast rule, and it isn't meant to. You're admitting that there's no significant coverage directed at the safe house, it's all about the detainees - so split this article, add the relevant sentences to the articles on the detainees and delete this. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The notability of this subject is a matter being established by original research on the page. It does that fairly well, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Shii (tock) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No offense, but I think there is an important distinction between simple collation, which is allowed and encouraged by our policies, and original research. If this article inserted original conclusions, not present in the original references, it would lapsing from the policy on Original research. If it tried to draw a conclusion between two or more referenced facts, not present in the articles references, that would be original research by synthesis. This article might be more interesting or more informative, if it had done either of those two things, but it would lapse from policy. I believe a useful policy compliant article is possible, without inserting original conclusions, or inserting an unreferenced synthesis. I believe this current version of this article doesn't lapse. Even if, for the sake of argument, I am blind to some portion of this document that did lapse from those two policies, the policy compliant response would be amend or remove the offending passages, not to delete the whole article. Suppose you were to start an article entitled something like World records set at the modern Olympics, and to write it you had to go to a bunch of WP:RS, and find the world records set at each Olympics. Selecting those races, and listing them all in one place would not be original research. If you were then to add your own personal interpretation, like "Fewer records were set at the Mexico and Peking Olympics because air pollution impaired athelete's performance -- but something for which there were no WP:RS, that would be original research. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- The guantanamo documents justify the continued detention with hundreds of allegations that captives had stayed at suspicious guesthouses. Those allegations name dozens of specific guesthouses. We could try to cover all those dozens of guesthouses with a single article. But I am sure that would be of much less value to the legitimate and policy compliant needs of our readers. Consider the Uyghur guest house, one of the guesthouses addressed here, it was one of the key allegations leveled at the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, used to justify their detention from 2001 through 2008. Ten months ago, after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush restored habeas corpus to the captives, forced the executive branch to provide real evidence to back up their allegation, the Department of Justice quietly announced it would not try to provide that evidence, and would no longer try to defend the assertion that the Uyghur captives were "enemy combatants". Our readers are, I believe, entitled to look to us for what is known about the Uyghur guesthouse. Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Splendid. Please feel free to include any sources which say anything about these guesthouses other than that they exist.  RGTraynor  02:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Article built solely on primary sources. There is pretty much no encyclopaedic content to the page - it is just a list of references to guest houses by US intelligience. If there was coverage in independent sources on the US stance of using staying at guesthouses as evidence against suspected terrorists, then there should be an article, but that hasn't been shown. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  There is no harm in the page being recreated at a later point if adequate sourcing does become apparent. In the meantime, we shouldn't rely on a synthesis of primary sources to create a topic. I agree, on a personal level, that the subject does seem an important one. However, we don't judge importance by personal feelings about a matter, but on whether the sources exist to write an encylopaedic entry. The history can always be undeleted at a later point, so it isn't permanently lost. Quantpole (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  Mm, I'm with Quantpole. Subjects aren't notable because we want them to be. They qualify for articles on Wikipedia if they pass the consensus criteria for inclusion, which includes WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Is the subject of safe houses generally important? Yes, indeed, and there's an article already on them: Al-Qaeda safe house.  RGTraynor  08:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  The other issue of course is that the article is not about guest houses or safe houses. A more accurate title would be Detention of Guantanamo captives based on residence at suspect guest houses, but that's a bit wordy! Quantpole (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Enough sources to add up to an article, but Ironholds does have a point about incidental mention--judging whether they are in toto substantial enough is not that easy. but I think it would be better if they were combined. In my opinion, Sherurcij is not quite correct that any subject is clearly "notable or not notable"--there are various degrees, and for subject that fall on the borderline, combining into a single article is a suitable way to go. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete probably fails WP:N. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, and quit copy-pasting deletion/keep rationale! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Our nominator has claimed that: "Twelve lines in twenty pages is not enough for "significant", particularly when the twelve lines don't even have the guest house as the subject." I am not challenging our nominator's good faith, but I believe his or her characterization of what the references say is highly misleading. Consider what Binyam Mohammed's third annual status review says about his stay in a Jalalbad guest house. Binyam Mohammed was one of the first captives to face charges before a military commission. He was alleged to have been part of a plot to explode dirty bombs in the USA. He faced two allegations, drafted in 2008, published in 2009, which says he stayed at a Jalalabad guest house that provided an explosives course. I dispute any characterization that this passage is "trivial", or a passing mention Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The detainee stated he arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan and contacted an associate of the head of the Algerian Training Camp outside of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. The detainee and the associate then traveled together to the Algerian guest house in Jalalabad.
  • "The Algerian guest house in Jalalabad , Afghanistan is known to have hosted an explosives course. The course involved training on the theory of electronic circuitry involved in explosives."
• Comment -- 220 of the 572 captives' who have had documents made public have references to Jalalabad. Some of those references to Jalalabad are not to guest houses in Jalalabad. And some of them are only passing references. Binyam Mohammed's was not. I believe other references clearly are not trivial passing mentions. In other similar {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one I addressed a concern I thought our nominator was making that collating significant details from multiple references constituted "original research". I suggested that it would only be original research if novel and unpublished interpretations were offered. Our nominator seemed to accept that point. I believe that collating significant and different details from multiple references can fulfill the requirement in WP:GNG for substantial coverage, and I believe the significant and different details collated from multiple reference here in this article fulfill that requirement. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- I tried to make the point in some of the other {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time they initiated this one that we can start articles on topics where our knowledge is incomplete. I offered the example of string theory and sub-atomic particles. I have written a couple of essays that address this issue, using the first sockpuppet to be unmasked as a starting point. "Substantial coverage" does not mean readers won't realize there are unanswered questions about the topic. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  Response: And that's an irrelevancy. Whether or not knowledge is "complete" here isn't the point. Whether people have questions generally about terrorism in the Middle East isn't the point. It's that none of these sources discuss any of these "guest houses" in any detail whatsoever. Binyam Mohammed's notability is not at issue, and I see he already has an article of his own. Claiming over and over again, in filibustering detail, that sources discuss in detail the subject that is the focus of this AfD when not a single one of them do is scarcely convincing. I'd recommend WP:KEEPCONCISE, myself.  RGTraynor  16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Incompleteness was raised as an issue at the other similar {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one. I think that makes it a point worth addressing here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WRT to your comment about Binyam Mohammed's notability. Unfortunately the wikipedia has very weak attempt to address a fundamental design idea. This comes up at {{afd}}s all the time -- and is routinely ignored. No offense but I believe your comment reflects one far from optimal design philosophy. WP:NOTPAPER. Yes, Binyam Mohammed has an article. So does the dirty bomb plot. At least three other individuals are alleged to have a role in the dirty bomb plot, Majid Khan, Jose Padilla and Abu Zubaydah. They all have articles too. It would be a mistak to try to shoehorn what we know about the dirty bomb plot into any of the articles on the individuals alleged to have been involved in it. And it would be a mistake to try to merge the articles on those individuals into the article on the dirty bomb plot. Abu Zubaydah was the registrar of the Khalden training camp. It would be a mistake to try to shoehorn what we know about him into the article about the camp, or vice versa. Ibn Al Sheikh Al Libi was also an officer of the Khalden camp. Have you ever had to try to get information from the raw dump of a database that has crashed? It is possible. All the basic information is in there. And if you are prepared to spend hours manually following the pointers, you can get at info that you could get at within seconds, if the database hadn't crashed. What that shows is that half or more of the value of that information lies in the links between the information in the database, not in the raw information itself. And exactly the same holds true for the wikipedia. The real power of the wikipedia lies in its wikilinks. Yes, Binyam Mohammed has an article, and yes, that article should have some mention of the connection between him, and Jalalabad guest houses. But to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that all the information about Jalalabad guest houses should be in the article about Binyam Mohammed would be a grave disservice to our readers, because the Jalalabad guest houses are notable for other reasons beyond the alleged bomb training courses available to Binyam Mohammed. At least one of the houses is alleged to have been run by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. At least one is alleged to have been run by the Tunisians. At least one is alleged to have been run by Algerians. At least one is alleged to have been run by Uyghurs. And at least one is alleged to have been run by "Arabs" (Afghans, Pakistanis and Iranians, while muslims, aren't Arabs). At least one is alleged to have been a Taliban transit house. The allegations also state that military training took place at at least one Jalalabad house. The allegations also state that at least one Jalalabad house was used to house graduates of the Al Farouq training camp. Please explain why you do not recognize this as substantial coverage. I suggest that the dozen or so articles I mentioned in this comment should all have a link to an article about Jalalabad guest houses. Trying to put the information about the connection between each of those other topics and its Jalalabad guest house(s) would deny our readers of the knowledge of the other Jalalabad guest houses. I frankly don't understand how you can justify denying our readers access to that information. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Because the information doesn't fulfil WP:GNG. Frankly it's sad to see a long-standing wikipedian resort to subjective "but it's important for our readers to have access to this!" arguments. Give Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions a read. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You called on me to re-read the WP:ATA essay. When was the last time you re-read WP:ATA#Arguments to the person? I made several points, which you have avoided addressing, and the one counter-argument you offered is based on a misinterpretation of my meaning. I am going to offer you the courtesy of assuming that your mischaracterization of my comment above was a good faith mistake. I encourage you to respond with civil, meaningful, substantive responses to comments on content issues, and to avoid offering judgments on others' personalities. If you can't do that perhaps it would be best if you simply kept your judgments of others to yourself? Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Your counterpoint was that the sources indeed fulfil the "significant" requirement - that was my main concern, and that was your main response. Since you made that response I've repeatedly argued that your counter-argument is ineffective. Your various points have either a) not been directed at the main concern or b) been directed at the main concern, but are not, in my opinion, persuasive arguments. Either way I have responded to your comments - the only one who's avoided addressing arguments is you, who has repeatedly brought up the idea that I find the article not being "complete" a problem, something I've never said. We obviously aren't going to agree on the "significant" point, as I've repeatedly said, so unless you have an explanation about where you found the "it doesn't cover everything" argument I'd suggest we leave it. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No offense, but your counter-arguments have alternated between tacitly acknowledging that my counter-arguments to your points were valid, but then claiming those points I effectively rebutted weren't your main point -- or claiming I was avoiding answering your main point -- or making what my pure math buddies would call a "proof by assertion", that is, your point was valid because you said it was valid. You assert the article lapses from WP:GNG without clearly saying why. If your secondary points aren't that important, just don't raise them.When you run out of counter-arguments say: "I felt strongly about this, but since I have run out of counter-arguments, so maybe I was wrong". Or when you run out of counter-arguments, say: "I can't explain why, but I still feel strongly this article should be deleted". When they run out of counter-arguments many wikipedia contributors just walk away. That is not ideal, but it is better than stooping to WP:ADHOM arguments. When you have run out counter-arguments don't stoop to WP:ADHOM. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  At no point has the lack of completeness been an issue. Stop filibustering and deal with the heart of the matter here. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The "heart of the matter"? Your initial nomination(s) asserted a failure to fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG. It is I addressed. Some other respondents here have repeated your assertion, without addressing my counter-arguments. I don't consider it "filibustering" to offer civil and meaningful response to challenges. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The counter-arguments were insufficient, hence my long-standing rejection of them. At what point was the article not being "complete" a problem? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This has gone past mere bullshit and approaches the surreal. Bothering to read (never mind respond to) this filibustering flurry of irrelevancies and obfustications is certainly doing me no good and does the encyclopedia no good. I'll leave this to the closing admin to sort through.  RGTraynor  16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is so incomplete and so dependent on a single series of sources that I don't know how it can be repaired. First of all, the article is about Suspect guest ''houses'', Jalalabad, not about a single house. Second, the article repeatedly states that various detainees faced allegations that they stayed in certain guest houses, but there is nothing to indicate what the detainees said in response to that -- "I never stayed there"? "Yes, I stayed there, but it's an ordinary guest house, not a terrorism house"? "There is no such house in Jalalabad"? Nor do we get any indication of where in Jalalabad these houses are located, how big they are, how many people they can accommodate at once, or anything else that would help identify or describe the houses themselves. The point of this article seems to be to discredit the U.S. government's claims about these houses, and I don't know how to improve it to achieve a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No offense, but I believe all of the concerns you have expressed here are content or editorial concerns, which, more properly, should be discussed on the talk page. (1) Should the name of the article refer to "houses" in the plural? Sure. That was a (minor) lapse on the part of the person who started the article (me), and it is one that can be trivially fixed. (2) Should this article offer the captives' response to the allegation that they stayed in the guest house? Maybe. Or maybe that kind of response, which could be lengthy, belongs in the article on the captive. Again, I think this is a content concern, and that the appropriate place to discuss this would be on the talk page, not in an {{afd}} -- and I do not believe this kind of concern should be grounds for deletion. (3) WRT to where in Jalalabad the houses were, what they looked like, how many people they were capable of housing... These are all good questions. But when did we start nominating articles for deletion because our references leave unanswered questions? (4) As to whether the current version of the article "discredits the U.S. government's claims"... When our articles are neutrally written the conclusions our readers come to are never the "wrong" conclusions. Drawing their own conclusions from neutrally written material is what is supposed to happen when readers read wikipedia articles. I honestly believe that this article complies with both the letter and the spirit of all the wikipedia's policies. In particular I believe the article contains zero editorializing. Our deletion policies contain various recommendations for how we should respond when we perceive a bias. Deletion is not one of the recommended responses. Expressing one's concern on the talk page is always a good first step. In some other discussions some contributors have argued for the deletion of material not because they could make a case it wasn't neutrally written, but because readers might draw the "wrong" conclusion from it. I would be very interested in having a meaningful discussion with anyone who thinks they can point to specific aspects of this article that lapse from neutrality. But, no offense, I think anyone who wants to delete neutrally written and otherwise policy compliant material because they are concerned what conclusions our readers will draw from it is engaging in a form of editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • One significant aspect of the article that violates NPOV is the paragraph from the lead that states: "American counter-terrorism analysts routinely conflated the concept of a guest house, a place for the open accommodation of visitors and travelers with that of a safe house, a place for hiding fugitives, or for hiding the travel of spies or criminals." I don't see any source for this statement, which implies either that the American counterterrorism analysts either didn't know the difference between a regular traveler guest house and a criminal/terrorist safe house, or that they did know the difference but brought allegations against detainees for staying at ordinary traveler guest houses to make it sound like those places were criminal/terrorist safe houses. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That assertion isn't sourced. That is a valid criticism. But that kind of concern is not grounds for deletion. Do American intelligence analysts know the difference between a regular traveler guest house and a criminal/terrorist safe house? I don't think this is the correct place to address that question in detail. Briefly, I read all the allegation memos, and all the transcripts. I routinely came across references to "al Qaeda safehouses" in Afghanistan prior to 9-11 -- that is at a time when the Taliban was in firm control of Afghanistan, and al Qaeda members and recruits could travel openly. And I came across references to "al Qaeda guesthouses" in Pakistan, where al Qaeda members and recruits would have to travel clandestinely. You are correct that it was a lapse on my part to use that wording, without a reference. I trust you will assume this was an inadvertent lapse. Alternatives are (1) rewrite that passage; (2) find a reference. The deletion policies do not support deletion of the whole article based on the wording of this passage. I think I can find a reference to support that wording, or something like it -- but not in the time remaining before this {{afd}} closes. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I reworded the passage that concerned you. I only took a couple of minutes doing so, and it reads awkwardly. But the {{afd}} is close to closure, and I didn't want to take more time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
        • The main point which you still have not addressed, is that this is all primary sources with no adequate sourcing for the assertions that are made. There is zero sourcing for the lead of the article, and it seems to be OR. I've already stated that this article appears to cover an important subject, but until it is written about in reliable sources we shouldn't be putting stuff together. At present this is an essay piece, and I can't see how it can be anything else, unless the independent sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I think the assertion that the article relies solely on primary sources is a very serious misconception -- one I think I addressed on September 2nd. If you are interested in seriously discussing this concern, could you please address the comments explaining why the Summary of Evidence memos should be considered secondary sources I made then? Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I explained why I thought the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos should be considered primary sources as to establishing the notability of Guantanamo detainees in [1]. Now, here, the memos are being used as our sole source of coverage not of a detainee, but of a kind of building incidentally mentioned in the memos about multiple detainees. This article relies 100% on documents issued by a single body within the U.S. government which are not even primarily about the article subject (the houses) but are mostly about some people who are alleged (among other allegations against them) to have stayed in those houses. There are no newspaper articles, no magazine articles, no books cited -- nothing but the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos, and they don't actually have a lot of content about the subject -- they just mention it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per rgtrayonot and metropolitan90. There's nothing that can be added to any arguments at this point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM. WP:NOTAVOTE. I have offered civil, meaningful replies to their concerns. I think the wikipedia deserves participants in {{afd}} discussions to only offer civil, meaningful responses. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Or one admin who is brave enough to enforce the policy against Original Research and put this article out of its misery. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per metropolitan90 and RGTraynor. I appreciate the time you have put into this discussion Geo Swan. The discussion is now already multiply times longer then the article and arguments have been addressed. IQinn (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Primary sources and per Met90. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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.