The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep - jc37 07:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ARB lists[edit]

Nearly two year old page without any chance of ever becoming an article, or of ever being of use for one. basically, this is the List of captives whose OARDEC memo was endorsed the same day it was drafted. Why this is relevant, where this has received any attention, or any other indication of why this would be inclsuion-worthy material for any article is missing. Fram (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Our nominator has stated, or implied, at least half a dozen times, that all sub-pages in user space should be deleted if there were no chance of them ever becoming an article. I looked at WP:User pages, which does not say this. Rather, it says, "Their main uses are communications, discussions, notices, trial workings and drafts, notes, and (limited) self disclosure if desired." I was aware of the possibility that I thought pages like this were compliant with WP:User pages but there may have been some clause overlooked, in the policy, or some other policy. I have asked our nominator, several times, to clarify which policy or guideline they were calling upon, that said all sub-pages in user-space had to be intended to become full-fledged articles in article space. I am sorry to report that it seems to me our nominator has simply ignored these requests. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provde diffs of me stating or implying such a thing, and of you asking several times to clarify this? I can recall no instances where I did the former, and one case of you doing the latter, i.e. here. I did not "simply ignore this request", I responded to this just thirteen minutes later.... Please don't make utterly incorrect remarks attacking the nominator, they only make yourself look bad. Anyway, in general, my reason for deletion, apart from some articles with serious BLP problems, is WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template ((userspace draft)) can be added to the top of the page to identify these). " The pages I nominated (of which this is by far the youngest, at nearly two years without substantive additions, all are pages that look like articles, and which badly fail the short term hosting clause. Fram (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page, the page nominated here, User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ARB lists does not look like a "fake article". It looks like a page of notes. And I do not see your BLP concern over it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote above, "The pages I nominated (of which this is by far the youngest, at nearly two years without substantive additions..." I am going to repeat a point that I believe I made in earlier discussions -- that no-one has added to a page of notes doesn't mean it hasn't been consulted. Geo Swan (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you show us where you have used this info this year or so? Fram (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- Is our nominator objecting to the name of this subpage? Are they saying they would not have requested deletion if it were named User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/List of captives whose OARDEC memo was endorsed the same day it was submitted? Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, of course not. I am objecting to the contents. The name, which would be an accurate description of its contents, only goes to show how ridiculous it would look in the main namespace. Fram (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, your concern is over its contents. So could you please explain your concerns with the contents? Geo Swan (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • RTFN. "Nearly two year old page without any chance of ever becoming an article, or of ever being of use for one. basically, this is the List of captives whose OARDEC memo was endorsed the same day it was drafted. Why this is relevant, where this has received any attention, or any other indication of why this would be inclusion-worthy material for any article is missing. " Fram (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- With regard to how these notes could contribute to adding "inclusion-worthy" material to the wikipedia. The history of repatriations from Guantanamo have been extremely complicated. Starting in late 2004, following the SCOTUS ruling, the captives' status was supposed to be formally reviewed once a year. If the review recommended there was no further reason to hold them, they were supposed to be released or repatriated.

  During the last years of the Bush administration there were well over one hundred and fifty captives, who had already been cleared for release, who weren't being released. WP:RS wrote about these long delays in release, and the bad effect it was having on the cleared men's morale and mental health. They had the constant example of seeing a steady stream of dangerous men, men whose annual reviews had recommended their continued detention, being released anyhow, for reasons of state. Said al Shiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula being a case in point. He was repatriated even though all his annual reviews recommended his continued detention. He was repatriated with fourteen other men -- eleven of whom were being repatriated even though their annual reviews recommended their continued detention. The remaining captives stopped attending their annual reviews, because they saw cleared men continining to be held for years, while men who had not been cleared were being released anyhow. WP:RS have addressed this. I believe the well-documented history of the fluctuations in clearances for repatriation, the long delays in repatriation after being cleared, is "inclusion-worthy". This page of notes is, I believe, potentially of value, in preparing coverage of the course of reviews, clearances, repatriations, and alleged recidivism. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This may not be suitable for an article on it's own, however the information could be suitable for inclusion in articles that exist currently, or future articles. It does not appear to violate anything at WP:User pages - and seems to fit into ...trial workings and drafts, notes... I think it should be kept. -Addionne (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable WP:OR. No secondary source that mention this. - IQinn (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep collating primary source information is not original research. Gigs (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Geo is an established contributor , and most of his work has been accepted in mainspace, though a few articles have not been--usually at times when there were not yet enough reliable sources available. This is a genuine attempt at article building, with a good probability of being used in articles; this is a permitted use. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 12 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.