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 Cheers, I'^mperator 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Abu Masood camp

[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an article. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Expand - military facilities are not an automatic pass. They must pass WP:N, which requires reliable, third-party sources giving significant coverage. The only sources provided are mentioning it in relation to something else, NOT covering it in any proper detail. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, a terrorist training camp is notable, and the fact that so far the creator has only had the time to detail one source talking about the camp, does not merit deletion. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. For brief example, ten seconds with Google showed me "In or about early October 2001, at LeT's Ibn Masood camp near Muzafrabad, Pakistan, Muhammed Aatique fired an AntiAircraft gun and an RPG"[1] and "As he explains, he was recruited by the Lashar-e-Taiba from Multan a couple of months ago and sent for a 21-day preliminary course at the Abdullah bin Masood camp, located near the Chalabndi bridge in the Sirkot area of Muzaffarabad."[2]Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second link doesn't work for me, the first is a skeleton argument for a court case. If that's the best google-scouring can find that really adds weight to my argument and doesn't detract from it. "Ibn Masood" and "Abdullah Abu Masood" are different things, and a terrorist training camp is not inherently notable, so simply stating that it is notable is worth nothing. Ironholds (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have 35 Marine Corps training centres, and none of them were listed as justification for a military invasion. On the other hand, the 40 terrorist training camps in Afg/Pak were listed, and thus are notable. And that's hardly the best "Google-scouring" can find, it's from the first page of hits for a very simple search of the title of the article. And I highly doubt LeT maintained three different camps named Ibn Masood, Abu Masood and bin Masood, realistically...especially when all three are listed as being in the same village. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, neither is "listed as justification for a military invasion". Were they listed in independent, reliable sources? Did those sources cover this camp in some detail? Ironholds (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you gave for deletion was "A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an article.", I have proven that wrong - come up with a new reason, or withdraw the nomination. It is clear there are, at least, several sources for the existence of the camp, including a PBS documentary which mentions it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go - given. "mentions" is exactly the problem. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequately sourced. Military bases are notable, provided there is reliable information. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources exist to write a decent verified article (even if a stub), so it is notable.Yob Mod 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading the nomination I never imagined that this "single internet document" would prove to be an official Dep of Defense report. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2009 (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.