740:
allegations focused around his management of these safe houses. Karachi has a population of 18 million? I assumed it was at least a million. We know
American intelligence analysts believed there were multiple safe houses. We know that their interrogation records listed six houses Rabbani was associated with. So, we don't know the exact number. Some of those six may have been the same houses, merely described differently. And some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with. But I don't see how this is a significant criticism. You dismissed my analogy with sub-atomic physics. Nevertheless, I will remind you we can cover quarks before scientists come to agreement as to whether there are 12 kinds, or 24, or 48. Same with string theory. Similarly, perhaps you could explain your interpretation of Synth. To describe something as a lapse from synth someone would have to introduce a novel confluence of ideas into article space. Similarly, original research requires the introduction of facts or interpretations not found in our sources. Neither of those is the case here. Going through a bunch of references, and covering what they say, without adding an original, unreferenced interpretation is just collation -- not original research.
269:
crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even
American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack.
509:; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about
1280:-- not on concerns with the current state of the article. Yet you are arguing for deletion, based on the current state of the article, even though every concern you have raised has been addressed, multiple times here in this discussion. You wrote about what you could assume about my motives. That is counter-policy. We are supposed to discuss the issues, not speculate about the character, personal judgment, intelligence or imagined hidden motives of those we disagree with. With some effort I am going to decline to respond in kind with speculation about your character, judgment or hidden motives.
846:, where we discuss how to write articles, what belongs, what is important, and what is trivial, what doesn't belong, it is both routine and necessary to discuss opinions. Practically every single extended discussion over notability triggers the expression of unreferenced opinion. Even if, for the sake of argument, the policies also barred the good faith offering of unreferenced opinions in good faith efforts to discuss what belongs in article space, I suggest that those lapses should not be used to argue for the deletion of articles that don't lapse from those policies.
682:, it has five bulleted points: "Significant coverage"; "Reliable"; "Sources,"; "Independent of the subject"; "Presumed". I think all those criteria are satisfied. You think they aren't. I have tried my best to address your concerns, at a very considerable cost of my time. So would it be possible for you to refrain from using inflammatory wording like I am "slipping away" from answering your concerns? Would it be possible for you to be specific about how you think the the article fails to satisfy those criteria?
489:, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While
857:. But then it seems to me yours is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the article. Intelligence analysts have written allegations that show what they believe about the houses they characterize as Karachi safe houses. And I believe the article faithfully and neutrally covers those allegations. Zero original research is needed to extract that content.
1222:, they've informed us of the activities of people around the safe houses in some detail. What do we know about the safe house itself? Do we know where in Karachi it is, when it was set up, when it was closed down, whether it's a single house? No. We know absolutely nothing about the house itself because none of the sources are looking at it directly.
639:. On multiple articles you and other users have been asked to prove exactly how important the articles you are touting are and have been repeatedly failing to do so, instead slipping away and replying with answers that don't actually answer the query. I indeed "honestly believe" 1) that this article fails the
981:
any given safehouse or discusses it in any detail whatsoever. This is the sort of argument we've both seen at AfD where the "reliable sources" a fanboy claims for his favorite garage band are nothing more than a one-line "Love Muscle is playing at Paul's Mall on
Tuesday and Wednesday at 8 PM" buried
643:
and 2) that it is required to pass it and 3) that
Sherurcij's argument is on "arguments to avoid". 2 and 3 aren't opinion, they are fact, and since you've done nothing to dispute 1 I see no reason why I shouldn't keep honestly believing it. Your example with sub-atomic particle theory is a false one;
1626:
The only question seems to be about the extent of coverage, and whether it is significant-- examining the sources themselves, I find that taken all in all they talk sufficiently about this to write an article. The possibility of combining this article with other similar ones should be kept in mind,
1112:
That seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers stayed in
Karachi guesthouses is not trivial. Their use as underground hospitals is not trivial. Their use as underground factories for the the manufacture of timers for time bombs is not trivial. The capture of a senior al-Qaeda leader's computers at
1089:
I do not believe your comment about only using references in articles when their main topic is the topic of the article, is consistent with how references are used on the wikipedia. Documents, including the source documents we reference in our articles, routinely talk about more than one topic. If
860:
Your interpretation of the article is that the contributors who wrote it (mainly me) were trying to imply there was a single
Karachi safe house. I don't believe the article says that. I don't believe there was a single al Qaeda safe house in Karachi. I take at face value that this is how you read
768:
Al-Qaeda safe house in
Karachi - that's Synthesis. You've completely missed the point about quarks - we can cover quarks before scientists discover how many there are, yes. But if you want an article on the 24-quark model and there aren't at least two sources covering it in "significant detail" then
429:-- Among the different suspected safehouses/guesthouses intelligence analysts describe some very important documents were seized from raids of the Karachi house(s). Computers were seized during these raids that contained lists of names that intelligence analysts concluded were members of al Qaeda.
888:
requires five points to be met. The first is "significant coverage", taken to mean " sources address the subject directly in detail". The sources do not address the subject directly (merely giving passing mentions while discussing something else) or in detail (they simply mention the "safe house in
712:
is because the sources are about people who stayed at the safe house, not the safe house itself. We don't even know if they're the same house! Karachi has a population of over 18 million - they could well be different places, but because the sources aren't even about the safe house(s) we can't even
240:
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,
231:
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
411:
I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those. In the interest of brevity I won't
268:
not a keep reason. Articles for
Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a
1327:
Well done for dodging the point there. I'll reiterate; you're complaining about personal comments made by
Ravenswing and myself. Where's your damning reply to Sherurcij's earlier ones? We're obviously not going to agree here and have different ideas of what "significant" is - lets just drop it.
1255:
The article still falls short of "significant coverage", and quite frankly I echo Ravenswing's mysticism over why a long-term Wikipedian is making such obviously flawed arguments (see his point above). I can only assume it is because you wrote the article and will jump through any hoop, however
976:
I'll answer this as well by repeating the answer from my talk page when you posed me the same question there: "I don't accept that they provide any detail at all beyond that they merely exist. C'mon ... you're not a rookie. You're an experienced editor of long standing, and it's almost beyond
773:
specifically says "'Significant coverage' means that ... no original research is needed to extract the content.". I acknowledge that the other four are fulfilled, but then I never said they weren't, and all five are required anyway. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject
616:
Would it be better to know more about these safe houses? Sure. But we have articles on topics where our references supply incomplete knowledge from all fields of knowledge, like, for instance, sub-atomic and the theories about them. You wouldn't suggest we hold off on creating articles on
739:
Okay. So, first, you acknowledge that the other four criteria are satisfied? Second, how much time did you spend looking at Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's allegation memos? Twelve pages of memos. If you strip out the redundant parts of the four memos there are still two solid pages of
808:
address the insertion of novel and unreferenced conclusions and interpretations. I do not believe this article contains any unreferenced conclusions or interpretations. Faithful and neutrally written citations of multiple references, without the insertion of novel interpretations is not
1060:
Most Livable Cities list ... why, I can find hundreds of facts about Perth there, many which have nothing to do with someone doing something there. By contrast, let's take a look at this article. Other than these sources claiming that particular suspected terrorists used them,
1298:
state of the article, other than a minor quibble about synthesis which is not the main issue. I note that you said nothing about Sherurcij's personal comments above; is it because it wasn't directed at you, or simply because he's on your side in this discussion? Hypocrisy much?
999:
A simpler way of saying it, actually - coverage of Abdul is detailed and substantial. Coverage of the safehouse is not. If we take away "stuff Abdul did at a safe house in Karachi" we're left with nothing, because all we know is based on things people did in relation to it.
197:, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. safe houses are not an automatic pass of the
1602:
Yes, that has been repeated here. However, it seems to me that those repetitions have been bereft of any meaningful explanation as to why the details in the references that I suggested were significant and substantial, weren't significant and substantial.
1065:
You can't tell us where they are. You can't tell us what they look like. You can't say what neighborhoods they're in, what architectural significance they have (if any), what other people might live there, whether they're residences or businesses ...
249:
in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Here I find 13 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
380:
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.
263:
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most
1236:
Frankly, all of the things you claim aren't in our sources actually are in our sources. Please, before claiming some fact you consider important is not in our references, take a moment, and actually read the list I prepared for you on the 25th at
1199:
I am doing my very best to take your concerns seriously. I am having a lot of trouble with this last one. If the safe houses weren't a subject of these documents, then how is it the documents have informed us about the safe houses in, as
949:
detailed coverage. If the article was on Abdul Al-Rahim then that'd be fine, but all that adds to the article is "while staying at the safehouse, Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam a) did this, b) did that, c)...". It's the difference between a book on
525:
incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press.
561:
I am sure you honestly believe this. And I honestly believe you are mistaken. Please consider what we know about what American intelligence analysts believe about the Karachi safehouses and guesthouses from just one captive --
162:
769:
it still fails. "some of the six may have been the same houses.. some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with"; speculation to back up synthesis. It is a significant criticism, since
1529:
1241:. I prepared this specifically to answer your questions. It took several hours to do so. Frankly, I am mystified as to why you keep making these incorrect assertions, about what is missing from the references.
1180:
They're sentences about Rabbani which mention his association with the safe house, not sentences about the safe house. Sources don't have to have the article subject as the primary subject, but it does have to be
1256:
ridiculous, to get it kept. In any case, we're not going to agree here since we seem to have completely different ideas as to how the notability guidelines are to be interpreted; I would suggest leaving it here.
879:
Your last statement is correct, but luckily that isn't why I nominated it for deletion; it's never been a core reason, it was merely an illustration of a point. I appreciate you've taken the time to respond to
1143:
are - you don't have two paragraphs about how the 9/11 hijackers stayed in the house, and what else the house was used for, and how long the house has been operating, et al, you don't have coverage of the
889:
Karachi". My point about multiple/single safe houses was an illustration of the lack of detail available). Please explain how the sources you have provided fulfil the "significant coverage" requirement.
764:
falls under original research. The article has taken references to "a safe house in Karachi", a city with a population of 18 million, and you've collated that into an article implying that there is a
224:
233:
156:
1589:
times in several of these discussions. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content."
977:
credulity that you consider a line like "The detainee was listed on a document recovered in safehouse raids associated with suspected al Qaida in Karachi" to mean that the source is
123:
1483:
1506:
1238:
922:
918:
613:
582:
and five of the USS Cole bombers. Bomb-making courses were supposed to have been held in the houses he managed. From his memos we know one safe house he managed was a
713:
verify something as basic as that. To go back to the core problem, though, there is no significant coverage, just passing mentions in various documents which have been
982:
in the arts and entertainment section of the local alternative weekly. We properly dismiss such arguments out of hand; why are you making them now? I don't get it."
90:
85:
94:
708:
of the safe house. The reason the article consists entirely of "things found in a safe house in Karachi" is because 1) that's all the information you found and 2)
1274:
that wasn't followed by a uncollegial comment. I won't respond in kind. I will remind you that arguments for deletion are supposed to be based on the merits of
251:
505:, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the
236:
merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted.
1627:
however, BTW, I do not think that the section on people Listed on a list found in a safe house is sufficient connection to include them here in such detail.
302:
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case".
77:
1404:
Stop trying to bait me. Our comments on content issues don't agree and are unlikely to, since we have different ideas of what the word "significant" in
287:
I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Knowledge (XXG).
609:
583:
579:
571:
567:
1090:
we applied your proposed rule here to all wikipedia articles, we would have quality control volunteers weighing in, and telling other contributors,
861:
the article. I suggest that would be an editorial issue, which I think you should have raised on the talk page. It is not grounds for deletion.
570:. Three of his four allegation memos stated he managed these safe houses under the direction of a senior al Qaida leader. But the earliest memo
501:
there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is
612:
We know American intelligence analysts believed some of these safehouses were used to hide and nurse injured fighters. A list can be found at
177:
144:
1148:, you have coverage of the hijackers which briefly mentions the house. I'm not saying it has to be the main topic, but it does have to be
1056:
article and see how many people live there, what the average temperature of the place is, that it's a seat of government, that's it's on
506:
958:
that lists all the things he did on Perth. Technically, Perth has coverage, but it doesn't mean we can create an article that'll pass
635:
You seem to be completely missing the point. Again. The problem isn't that the article is incomplete; the problem is that the article
578:, the number three in al Qaida, believed to be the brains behind the USS Cole bombing, and the attack on 9-11. He is alleged to have
644:
I am looking for notability, not completeness. If a theory of sub-atomic particles was so unimportant that the author can't meet the
17:
81:
1294:
If you'd addressed my concerns properly I wouldn't be discussing this, would I? My argument is not and has never been based on the
373:
is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that
138:
1070:
That is what makes all these articles unsustainable, and I'm baffled to the point of bewilderment that you haven't seen that.
1638:
1612:
1597:
1580:
1562:
1541:
1518:
1495:
1417:
1351:
1337:
1322:
1308:
1289:
1265:
1250:
1231:
1213:
1194:
1175:
1161:
1122:
1078:
1043:
1009:
990:
971:
934:
898:
870:
791:
749:
730:
691:
657:
626:
556:
530:
473:
456:
438:
421:
389:
358:
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
350:
311:
297:
288:
278:
258:
210:
59:
517:
in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he
134:
1239:
Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses
923:
Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses
919:
Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses
563:
1152:
topic. Right now you've given me multiple sources with trivial mentions, not multiple sources with significant mentions.
774:
directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." ; the sources do not address the subject
73:
65:
1653:
36:
184:
55:
830:. I believe you are making a mistake in doing so. Those policies bar the insertion of unreferenced personal opinion
1166:
Go back to Rabbani's memos. Half or more of the documents are about Rabbani's association with the safe house.
1026:? Couldn't someone come along and say, "everything in these articles is about something someone did at Perth.
1652:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1053:
1019:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
150:
594:"located at Gulshan I-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan to edit video tapes and produce video discs from the tapes."
1027:
925:. Please look at it, and then let me know whether you still believe that the coverage is not in detail.
575:
51:
1558:
648:
of two third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in some length then it's probably bullshit.
365:
I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that
338:
237:
329:
unless exact location of the "guest house" is properly referenced (grin). Seriously, if it's about a
1537:
1514:
1491:
1413:
1333:
1304:
1261:
1227:
1190:
1157:
1005:
967:
894:
787:
726:
653:
552:
452:
307:
274:
206:
170:
1608:
1576:
1347:
1318:
1285:
1246:
1209:
1171:
1118:
1039:
930:
866:
745:
687:
622:
434:
417:
823:
801:
761:
714:
1550:. A catch all article about any instance of location being called a safe house. I'm going with
1139:
topic, not something briefly mentioned in passing. I'm not saying it's trivia, I'm saying the
510:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
201:, and more evidence needs to be provided before the inclusion of this article is acceptable.
1554:
407:
s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in
1568:
1551:
1405:
1201:
959:
885:
850:
827:
805:
770:
718:
701:
679:
640:
636:
544:
540:
444:
366:
359:
198:
1590:
1071:
1023:
983:
951:
585:"two-story house near the Karachi, Pakistan airport in a community called, Wireless Gate."
466:
382:
547:
in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion.
462:
461:
Do we have sources in this article that discuss the safe house in significant detail, as
412:
repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others.
377:
241:
and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is
1533:
1510:
1487:
1409:
1329:
1300:
1257:
1223:
1186:
1153:
1001:
963:
955:
890:
783:
722:
649:
614:
Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses
548:
527:
448:
303:
294:
284:
270:
255:
202:
1270:
I wonder if, in the history of the wikipedia, anyone has ever started a comment with:
370:
194:
1634:
1604:
1572:
1343:
1314:
1281:
1242:
1205:
1167:
1114:
1035:
926:
862:
741:
683:
618:
430:
413:
346:
840:
816:
782:(they're single mentions in throwaway references while discussing something else).
401:
45:
111:
617:
subatomic particles because we have unanswered questions about them, would you?
1093:
485:
1131:
References don't have to have the article topic as their main topic, but they
1031:
1113:
one of the guesthouses, with key lists of al Qaeda members, is not trivial.
227:; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform
1629:
1101:
962:
when it almost entirely consists of "stuff Lord Mansfield did in Perth".
566:. His allegation memos listed almost three dozen allegations related to
514:
342:
704:
requires the sources to give "significant coverage" each - you've found
333:
than be specific, provide address or at least GPS coords. If it's about
608:
We know these American analysts believe these safe houses were used to
1185:
subject; show me one paragraph where the house itself is the subject.
1097:
778:(they're throwaway references when discussing something else) or in
1530:
list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions
1105:
600:
The one where he lived with a planner of the USS Cole bombing was
1646:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1567:
Could you please be specific about which of the five points in
1342:
Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues.
1313:
Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues.
1272:"I am surprised that a contributor of your experience would..."
225:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp
606:"at Sonia apartments on Tariq road in Karachi, Pakistan..."
849:
You say all five criteria need to be met. And you quote
293:
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you.
234:
Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War
914:
855:"no original research is needed to extract the content"
602:"in the Defense View neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan"
408:
118:
107:
103:
99:
169:
1104:, because it is already being used in the article on
884:
all my points, but again you've missed the main one.
543:. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is
1052:
Only if that person was a moron. I can pull up the
367:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of first instance
836:. In our talk pages, and in discussion fora, like
800:Collation is not synthesis. As I wrote above both
483:, I would encourage people to take a brief look at
183:
1092:"You can't use this reference in the articles on
812:You have focused on things I wrote here on these
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1656:). No further edits should be made to this page.
598:"Mehmoodabad neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan."
443:Do we have coverage of those seizures that pass
397:-- There are currently over half a dozen active
921:. I am going to repeat my request you look at
580:hosted seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers
363:without actually addressing the nom's argument.
1484:list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions
252:List of charities accused of ties to terrorism
1507:list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions
8:
1063:you can't tell us a single thing about them.
1571:you think this article does not satisfy?
1524:
1501:
1478:
915:I listed a half dozen detailed allegations
913:coverage surprises me. Back on the 25th
822:s, and characterized them as lapses from
568:his management of six Karachi safe houses
1528:: This debate has been included in the
1505:: This debate has been included in the
1482:: This debate has been included in the
572:says he managed them under the direction
833:into our articles -- into article space
541:fails the most basic test of notability
337:house in Karachi, delete. What's next,
637:fails the most basic test of inclusion
369:, or that - far from being optional -
721:and guidelines on original research.
497:at that level of completeness, it is
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1034:flew overhead in Friendship 7; etc.
604:. The one where he was captured was
945:Dozens of teenty tiny comments are
590:"in the Rabia City area of Karachi"
507:Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice
907:Your comment that I haven't shown
283:Additional: after looking at your
24:
1408:should mean. Lets leave it here.
1204:requires, "substantial detail"?
341:or it's a one-off coattrack run?
1018:And how is that different from
521:notable. Again, these articles
1:
760:No, it's original research -
564:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani
535:The subject is by definition
245:now, and the article will be
917:, and requested you look at
610:build timers for time bombs.
74:Al Qaida safe house, Karachi
66:Al Qaida safe house, Karachi
1639:01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1613:11:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1598:05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1581:19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1563:16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1542:08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1519:08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1496:08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1418:15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1352:15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1338:11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1323:11:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1309:22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1290:22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1266:20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1251:19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1232:15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1214:15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1195:12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1176:09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1162:18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1123:17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1079:19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1044:17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1010:17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
991:10:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
972:17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
935:17:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
899:08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
871:23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
792:12:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
750:06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
731:02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
692:02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
658:00:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
627:00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
557:16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
531:16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
474:02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
457:02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
439:18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
422:18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
390:17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
351:20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
312:16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
298:16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
289:16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
279:16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
259:15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
211:12:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
60:09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
1673:
513:, the former President of
232:USMC bases, or any of the
1649:Please do not modify it.
1054:Perth, Western Australia
1020:Perth, Western Australia
700:"significant coverage".
646:incredibly high standard
32:Please do not modify it.
1028:Captain James Stirling
717:. This fails both our
576:Khalid Shayhk Mohammed
719:notability guidelines
715:synthesised together
596:A fourth was in the
588:We know another was
1135:have to have it as
592:. Yet another was
539:notable because it
1585:We have said this
1277:covering the topic
545:directly addressed
339:Drug Den in London
1544:
1521:
1498:
511:Crispin Sorhaindo
229:Damnatio memoriae
52:Anthony Appleyard
1664:
1651:
1594:
1075:
987:
845:
839:
821:
815:
706:passing mentions
470:
406:
400:
386:
378:reliable sources
188:
187:
173:
121:
115:
97:
44:The result was
34:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1654:deletion review
1647:
1592:
1073:
1024:Perth, Tasmania
985:
843:
837:
819:
813:
493:article is not
468:
404:
398:
384:
130:
117:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1670:
1668:
1659:
1658:
1642:
1641:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1545:
1522:
1499:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1126:
1125:
1110:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1047:
1046:
1013:
1012:
994:
993:
974:
956:Lord Mansfield
954:and a book on
938:
937:
902:
901:
874:
873:
858:
847:
810:
795:
794:
753:
752:
734:
733:
695:
694:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
630:
629:
478:
477:
476:
459:
424:
392:
353:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
191:
190:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1669:
1657:
1655:
1650:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1631:
1625:
1622:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1088:
1087:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1069:
1064:
1059:
1058:The Economist
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
996:
995:
992:
989:
988:
980:
975:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
948:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
906:
905:
904:
903:
900:
896:
892:
887:
883:
878:
877:
876:
875:
872:
868:
864:
859:
856:
852:
848:
842:
835:
834:
829:
825:
818:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
772:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
735:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
696:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
659:
655:
651:
647:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
631:
628:
624:
620:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
529:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
482:
479:
475:
472:
471:
464:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
423:
419:
415:
410:
403:
396:
393:
391:
388:
387:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
357:
354:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
324:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
299:
296:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
267:
262:
261:
260:
257:
253:
248:
244:
239:
235:
230:
226:
222:
221:Snowball Keep
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1648:
1645:
1628:
1623:
1591:
1586:
1547:
1525:
1502:
1479:
1295:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1219:
1182:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1091:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1030:founded it;
984:
978:
946:
909:
908:
881:
854:
832:
831:
779:
775:
765:
709:
705:
645:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
584:
536:
522:
518:
502:
498:
494:
490:
484:
480:
467:
426:
394:
383:
374:
362:
355:
334:
330:
326:
265:
246:
242:
220:
216:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
48:
46:Casting vote
43:
31:
28:
1593:Ravenswing
1555:Niteshift36
1094:P.T. Barnum
1074:Ravenswing
986:Ravenswing
486:Najim Jihad
469:Ravenswing
465:requires?
385:Ravenswing
238:WP:NOTPAPER
217:Strong Keep
157:free images
1032:John Glenn
910:"detailed"
499:on its way
1534:Thryduulf
1511:Thryduulf
1488:Thryduulf
1410:Ironholds
1330:Ironholds
1301:Ironholds
1258:Ironholds
1224:Ironholds
1187:Ironholds
1154:Ironholds
1002:Ironholds
964:Ironholds
891:Ironholds
784:Ironholds
723:Ironholds
650:Ironholds
549:Ironholds
528:Sherurcij
449:Ironholds
304:Ironholds
295:Sherurcij
271:Ironholds
266:certainly
256:Sherurcij
203:Ironholds
1605:Geo Swan
1573:Geo Swan
1344:Geo Swan
1315:Geo Swan
1282:Geo Swan
1243:Geo Swan
1206:Geo Swan
1168:Geo Swan
1141:mentions
1115:Geo Swan
1102:elephant
1068:nothing.
1036:Geo Swan
927:Geo Swan
863:Geo Swan
824:WP:SYNTH
802:WP:SYNTH
776:directly
762:WP:SYNTH
742:Geo Swan
684:Geo Swan
619:Geo Swan
515:Dominica
431:Geo Swan
414:Geo Swan
409:this afd
285:userpage
247:complete
124:View log
1587:several
1296:current
1220:haven't
678:WRT to
503:notable
481:Comment
395:Comment
375:someday
356:Delete:
243:notable
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
1569:WP:GNG
1552:WP:GNG
1548:Delete
1406:WP:GNG
1202:WP:GNG
1098:circus
960:WP:GNG
886:WP:GNG
882:almost
851:WP:GNG
828:WP:NOR
809:SYNTH.
806:WP:NOR
780:detail
771:WP:GNG
766:single
702:WP:GNG
680:WP:GNG
641:WP:GNG
445:WP:GNG
360:WP:AGF
327:Delete
199:WP:GNG
193:fails
135:Google
119:delete
95:delete
1635:talk
1218:They
1146:house
1106:Jumbo
1100:, or
979:about
952:Perth
463:WP:RS
331:house
178:JSTOR
139:books
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
1624:Keep
1609:talk
1577:talk
1559:talk
1538:talk
1526:Note
1515:talk
1503:Note
1492:talk
1480:Note
1414:talk
1348:talk
1334:talk
1319:talk
1305:talk
1286:talk
1262:talk
1247:talk
1228:talk
1210:talk
1191:talk
1172:talk
1158:talk
1119:talk
1040:talk
1022:and
1006:talk
968:talk
931:talk
895:talk
867:talk
826:and
804:and
788:talk
746:talk
727:talk
710:that
688:talk
654:talk
623:talk
553:talk
523:will
491:this
453:talk
435:talk
427:Keep
418:talk
371:WP:V
347:talk
308:talk
275:talk
219:per
207:talk
195:WP:N
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
49:Keep
1630:DGG
947:not
841:afd
817:afd
574:of
537:not
495:yet
402:afd
343:NVO
335:any
254:.
223:of
185:TWL
1637:)
1611:)
1579:)
1561:)
1540:)
1532:.
1517:)
1509:.
1494:)
1486:.
1416:)
1350:)
1336:)
1321:)
1307:)
1288:)
1264:)
1249:)
1230:)
1212:)
1193:)
1174:)
1160:)
1133:do
1121:)
1108:".
1096:,
1042:)
1008:)
970:)
933:)
897:)
869:)
853::
844:}}
838:{{
820:}}
814:{{
790:)
748:)
729:)
690:)
656:)
625:)
555:)
519:is
455:)
447:?
437:)
420:)
405:}}
399:{{
349:)
310:)
277:)
209:)
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
1633:(
1607:(
1575:(
1557:(
1536:(
1513:(
1490:(
1412:(
1346:(
1332:(
1317:(
1303:(
1284:(
1260:(
1245:(
1226:(
1208:(
1189:(
1183:a
1170:(
1156:(
1150:a
1137:a
1117:(
1038:(
1004:(
966:(
929:(
893:(
865:(
786:(
744:(
725:(
686:(
652:(
621:(
551:(
451:(
433:(
416:(
345:(
306:(
273:(
205:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.