 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
Point? edit
What was the point of creating this article if it just has the same content as found in 2007 Fort Dix attack plot? Remy B 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, should be merged imo. Wickethewok 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, we should not spread out related information in a non-encyclopedic manner. Merge and delete/redirect. --Monotonehell 08:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point that almost EVERY SINGLE GITMO PRISONER has a wikipage thanks to one OBSESSED wikipedia editor (not me). Most of these poeple are completely unknown (not like this guy Shnewer, who is right now very famous/infamous): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees If you have something to delete, it's 90% of these. --84.234.60.154 05:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Egad. Were those articles built from a template? Well, regardless, a good notion to keep in mind is that WP:N#Notability is generally permanent. This incident appears over. Gitmo, as far as we know, isn't. (Both in terms of future developments.) So what to do in this case appears a bit more clearcut. A weak argument, but complemented with the above ones, it means that I favor merging. GracenotesT § 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, he will get his article only if they move him to Gitmo? This made my day, thank you.
- You know what? I propose to MERGE/DELETE MOST OF THESE ARTICLES with Gitmo - I bet you never EVER heard about almost all of these guys mentioned by name (as opposing to Mr. Shnewer). It's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guantanamo_detainees_known_to_have_been_released
- Oh, and the single guy (to quote him: "Yes, I have written articles about nearly ever known Guantanamo captive.") who made all of these spam articles (hundreds of them!) always uses these oh-so-neutral images and captions (yes, ALWAYS these huge blocks of text) >> see right. I'd propose to delete them too for the sake of NPOV. But I guess you all are only concerned about this one... because? --84.234.60.154 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because it is not possible for someone to actively pursue every single problem article on all of Wikipedia. This isn't the place to vent your anger over other articles. If you think the other articles should be deleted then it is your own responsibility to put them up for deletion. Look it up at WP:AFD. Remy B 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. So the article about guy making the news and front pages is to go, and SEVERAL HUNDRED articles about jihadi nobodies are to stay because they are NOT notable. Okay! --84.234.60.154 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My expectation is that more information will come out about the plot, plus more information about the individual contributors and their roles in the plot. Plus expect some hand wringing and media analysis of how the suspects became involved in the plot and their personal stories. --James968 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Should we keep content-empty articles for the reason we anticipate they will become a notable topic in the future? Remy B 11:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, we should NOT keep them, according to WP:NotabilityBiophys 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought he's pretty damn notable right now. --84.234.60.154 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this man is notable, unlike many other prisoners.Biophys 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)