Deletion of Al Qaida guest house, Kabul

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. Here I find 32 different people accused whose detention in Guantanamo Bay is justified by the United States on the basis they stayed in this waypoint house...it is no more an "indiscriminate" list than List of charities accused of ties to terrorism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: This nomination asserts the article is: ''"a textbook example of "''.  I just checked , and I found it had list five different classes: Plot-only descriptions, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports, FAQs. No offense, but I don't see how this article could be described as any of those classes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

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: I find the nominations challenges to the reliability of the references illustrates a very different understanding of the wikipedia's |policy on verifiability than my own.  If a non-notable blogger makes assertions about someone -- that is unreliable.  When a government agency makes an assertion it is reliable that, at least, that this is the government agency's official position.   says we aim for what is verifiable, not what is true.  It seems to me that what our nominator is really challenging is whether the government's assertions are accurate.  Determining whether the assertions in a official government document are '''''reliable''''' is not our role.  During the last American administration some politically appointed officials were criticized for politicizing science.  They were criticized for reinterpreting the scientific conclusions of professional scientists.  The one I remember best was the re-interpretation of the professional conclusions of professional scientists, on global warming.  The documents this political appointee rewrote were widely regarded "unreliable" from a purely factual point of view.  But, IIRC, what was not in dispute was that while the appointed official lacked the expertise to reliably rewrite the conclusions of professional scientists, he did have the chart of organization authority to rewrite those documents, and that his rewrites had become the official position of those agencies.  I suggest we would then, and still would now, state that, at the time he rewrote those conclusions those were the official positions of his agency.  We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, no matter how widely doubted its factual reliability was.  We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, based on our own personal doubts over its factual reliability.  To do so would be to lapse from  and .  Suppressing neutral material over our own personal doubts over its factual reliability is, IMO, a form of editorializing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VER||WP:VER||WP:VER||WP:NPOV)