Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The dark prison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate wasKeep.--Shanel 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The dark prison

Neologism. That eight people called something something does not merit inclusion. Gets close to POV. --Quasipalm 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Quasipalm, doesn't your nomination count as your vote in an {afd} discussion? You wouldn't want to vote twice, would you? -- Geo Swan 13:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. A nomination is not a vote. It's a nomination. Sorry I forgot to sign. --Quasipalm 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep -- disclaimer, I started this article
  • POV is not grounds for deletion. Check the guidelines for deletion....
  • The article is well documented. "The salt pit" is another, similar site. It probably has an official name. A classified official name. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have an article about this important site, because we don't know its classified name? Note: Everyone calls The White House the white house. Its official name is(was?) the executive mansion, or something like that.
  • I'm not convinced this article is well documented. If only eight people have seen this place, how can it meet Wikipedia:Verifiability? I could find eight people abducted by aliens on the subway yesterday morning. I know that's an absurd example, yes, and not to make light of the situation, but we need to only create articles that can be verified, not articles that rely on such weak grounds. --Quasipalm 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) I know you've admitted your analogy is weak, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's more likely that the Americans have a torture camp in Afghanistan than it is that people have been abducted by aliens. 2) We've verified that eight people have claimed that they were in this prison. They were given enough credence to have their claims printed in two sources whom we should have no problem treating as reliable. As long as we don't state as fact that this place exists, which we don't, I see no problem with verifiability. --Last Malthusian 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging this article with Guantanamo Bay is a bad idea. The prison is in Afghanistan for crying out loud. Merging with the geographical location Guantanamo Bay would be an invitation to have the material deleted, because it would be off-topic.
  • <pedantry>Actually it's in Cuba.</pedantry> --Last Malthusian 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Lol. My bad, you probably meant the dark prison was in Afghanistan. LM
  • Merging it with Camp Delta, which may be what you really meant, is also a bad idea. The detainees in Camp Delta are all in military custody. The captives in "the dark prison", "the salt pit" and the other black sites are all in CIA custody. There is an active debate over whether the CIA should be exempted from the restriction against torture. That makes this site, where the detainees claim some pretty horrific torture, highly notable. -- Geo Swan 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, I challenge the description that the article is POV. There are topics which some people think reflect poorly on the Bush administration's policy decisions. They want those topics suppressed, without regard to how neutrally the facts are expressed. If you really think the article contains bias, you should say so -- specifically -- on the talk page. A perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. -- Geo Swan 05:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too speculative and narrow. We can't be putting in Wikipedia every phrase ever coined. Put it in Wikitionary if appropriate. Madman 05:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is about a prison, and not the prison's name. Do you have any other objections? Would you object to the article if it had a different name? -- Geo Swan 07:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Geo Swan, I see your point. Yes, I would think that this prison would be notable enough. I would also support Merge. Madman 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secret torture centres run by a democracy are kinda notable. And as pointed out above, the spooks are unlikely to come and tell us its official name. --Squiddy 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Some of the detainees in this black site were not captured during the invasion of Afghanistan. The sources say that the captives didn't spend more than a month or two in the prison, but prisoners are reported to have been sent there as late as 2004, two years after the invasion of Afghanistan. And some of the detainees weren't even captured in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or any of the other countries bordering Afghanistan. Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, for instance, were captured thousands of miles away, in Gambia. They had never even travelled to Afghanistan, prior to their capture.
  2. I think every one of the prisons in the CIA's network of extra-judicial interrogation centres merits an article of its own.
  3. I know some of the regular followers of {afd} consider themselves followers of "mergism". I am not assuming that you Jamyskis are a "mergist". I am addressing this comment to those who consider themselves mergists. My idea of how the wikipedia should evolve are strongly influenced by the ideas of Ted Nelson. I strongly agree with him that computers free us from confining our knowledge to linear forms. Constellations of related small articles can serve the inherently anarchic nature of some topics far better than imprisoning them in linear monolithic articles. -- Geo Swan 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup/expand. --MisterHand 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Well documented, by its nature it can't at this time have a more "official" name (ESkog)(Talk) 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup but verified and significant. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep— Jeandré, 15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsol 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and refresh whenever more details show up from the slush Nol Aders 21:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to me that this article clearly has enough merit to warrant it's presence, provided that emphasis is made of it's disputability. Credible sources, such as Human Rights Watch, are approaching this subject with the same attitude. -- Lukehought 17:20, 27 December 2005 (GMT)
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.