Deletion of Suspect guest house, Jalalabad

Comment: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of  ''without actually addressing the nom's argument.'' I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that |Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional -  is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia.  It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that ''someday'' |reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail.  They must be present now, and so far they are not.  Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: per ''Snowball Keep'' of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the :Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted.  assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is ''notable'' now, and the article will be ''complete'' in the future...just like millions of other stubs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: It seems to me that this article rests precariously on only primary sources, which, given that they call the guest houses "suspected" can't really be said to be reliable. So there is a erifiability problem. Also, the article says nothing more than "person we have an article on may have stayed in ad hoc name guest house". If we had an article on a mafiosi snitch, and somebody made an article entitled Suspected safe house, Baltimore, which stated that, prior to his testimony, the mafiosi stayed in an FBI safe house somewhere in Baltimore, such an article would be deleted without mercy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: 220 of the 572 captives' who have had documents made public have references to Jalalabad.  Some of those references to Jalalabad are not to guest houses in Jalalabad.  And some of them are only passing references.  Binyam Mohammed's was not.  I believe other references clearly are not trivial passing mentions.  In other similar {{tl|afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one I addressed a concern I thought our nominator was making that collating significant details from multiple references constituted "|original research".  I suggested that it would only be original research if novel and unpublished interpretations were offered.  Our nominator seemed to accept that point.  I believe that collating significant and different details from multiple references can fulfill the requirement in  for substantial coverage, and I believe the significant and different details collated from multiple reference here in this article fulfill that requirement
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:GNG)