Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp

message: WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a battleground".
I have been thinking, a month or more, that I should get some help from someone more knowledgeable about wikiprojects, in starting a wikiproject centred around the articles devoted to Guantanamo detainees.
I didn't anticipate that someone would create a wikiproject intended to delete articles related to Guantanamo detainees.  Now obviously it would be contrary to Wikipedia is not a battleground to have two wikiprojects, where one was devoted to improving the same articles the other wikiproject was committed to deleting.
I am hoping that Crazy Russian, or other wikipedians committed to deleting the wikipedia's articles related to Guantanamo detainees, could offer fuller explanations as to why they think they should be deleted.  
Even if it is unlikely that these explanations would convince me, I still think that stating the targets of the wikiproject more specifically would be important.  The two last serious wikipedians who nominated articles related to Guantanamo detainees saw those articles as test cases, which, had they succeeded, would authorize them to propose a blanket nomination on remaining article.  The last nominator only planned to release a subset of the articles related to Guantanamo detainees.  The previous nominator planned to delete all the articles related to  Guantanamo detainees.  --  Geo Swan 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misinterpreted the purpose of WikiProject Deletion sorting.  The objective of the project, is to sort deletion nominations into topical categories.  So somebody who only cares about say, India related deletion discussions, can watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India and know when such a discussion is underway.  The project relies on people to sort, so maybe 5% of AFDs get sorted, but it is a start.  I usually sort discussions what I want to see a topical expert opine on.  I think these project lists are more useful if we can get experts to watch them instead of advocates, but they are certainly not projects intended for deletion.  GRBerry 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a battlefield

message: In various of the nominations to delete articles related to Guantanamo detainees some wikipedians have suggested taking the articles that haven't yet been expanded beyond the names, detainee IDs, nationalities, date of birth, place of birth, and the reference(s) to at least one of the transcript of their Combatant Status Review Tribunal; the transcript of their first annual Administrative Review Board hearing; and their "factors" memo, should be merged and redirected into a table.  
#The articles currently contain references that specify the page number within the large portable document format files that the DoD released allowed readers quickly go the detainees transcript.  No other public source offered readers this information.  The merged article must, IMO, preserve this information.
#The Department of Defense has proven unwilling or unable to transliterate the names of the Guantanamo detainees in a consistent manner.  When each detainee has an article devoted to themselves it is trivial to accommodate multiple spellings and transliterations using the redirect mechanism.  I don't see any convenient mechanism for accommodating those detainees with multiple transliterations.
If the communities consensus is to substitute some articles with an entry in table somewhere,
I would like to see this omnibus file, with the working references to the transcripts, and factors memos, created, tested and working reliably, before any merging and redirecting be performed.  I anticipate  it would not be trivial.  --  Geo Swan 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge technical problems

message: Any chance we could rename this sorting list to encompass the "War on Terror", rather than simply Guantanamo? By the current definition, even Bagram goings-on wouldn't fit. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: Another contributor unilaterally redirected this deletion project to the Cuba deletion project.
They were apparently laboring under some misconceptions, including that this project was "unused".
Here is the discussion I had with them on their talk page.
I reverted that unilateral redirection.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert unexplained edit 

message: I just saw this delsort list while scanning through the list of all of them. I am not seeing any significant reason for maintaining this particular delsort project. Its subject is extremely narrowly defined, it has experienced little activity for the last two years and, most importantly, its scope is already adequately covered by  Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism. As far as I can tell, the "Terrorism" delsort list covers every article that has ever been listed in this one. The "Terrorism" delsort list is more active, but it is  not overwhelmed by traffic and there does not appear to be a compelling reason to split it into subprojects for the moment. Even if we did want to split it, the topic of  "Guantanamo Bay detainment camp" is several levels below the scope of the parent "Terrorism" project. E.g. we have a delsort list for "Science", but not for indivdual disciplines like Chemistry/Physics/Astronomy, etc, and certainly not for more special topics in these disciplines such as, say having a delsort list for "Production of sulfuric acid" would be without having a "Chemistry" delsort list first. So why exactly is this delsort list necessary? Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this delsort list really needed?