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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious list (OARDEC)

[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, fails WP:N. It has been reported that "71 detainees’ names or aliases were found on computers, hard drives, physical lists of Al Qaeda operatives, or other material seized in raids on Al Qaeda safehouses and facilities." This article throws these 71 names together, no matter whether they come from the physical lists or other material, and labels it a "suspicious list". I hope that "list of suspects" is intended, no indication otherwise is given of what would be "suspicious" about this "list" (which is not really a list at all). The two sources given don't discuss this "list" any further beyond the given quote, and no other reliable, independent, indepth sources are available that would shed more light on this. Fram (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and the subjects fail notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page could just as easily have appeared on Wikileaks. This appears to be a list of names of people detained at Guantanamo. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say: "This page could just as easily have appeared on Wikileaks" So we decide what to include into Wikipedia based on what could or could not appear on Wikileaks? It would be helpful if you could provide policy based arguments and counter arguments as otherwise your !vote might be discounted. IQinn (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guantanamo is notoriously notable and so are the residents of Guantanamo (as is everything else associated with Guantanamo). They are the most famous detainees in the world. Definitely a keep. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No offence but i think "They are the most famous detainees in the world." Is not a policy based argument. We have almost a thousand articles on Guantanamo and the detainees there. So it would be helpful if you could explain why you think that "the article we discuss here" is notable and you might also provide counter arguments to the strong reasons for deletion that are given and based on policy. IQinn (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the given arguments of the nominator. Fails WP:N. IQinn (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Brewcrewer. Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ugh, yet more of this detainee mess to clean up? A sloppy, WP:OR-heavy treatment of a trivial topic; many of the names on that list would probably be eligible for individual AfDs as well. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 4 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.