Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdel Hadi Mohammed Badan Al Sebaii Sebaii

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Notability of these individual prisoners is not sufficiently established. I am willing to userfy these articles on request if anyone would like to merge information on the detainees to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Hadi Mohammed Badan Al Sebaii Sebaii[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBig Xray 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. (Note I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [1] [2] [3] was Delete --DBig Xray 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Guantanamo" gets 136,000 hits on Google News. Are we to believe that this is because of the architecture of the internment facility there? Or perhaps the guards, or their uniforms?

It is said that notability is not inherited, but this is a red herring. Not inherited from what, exactly? It is the other way around, Guantanamo is discussed because of the imprisonment of the subjects of these articles: 10,000 hits for the over 98 years between 1/1/1903, the year the base was founded, and 9/11/2001, the year, you know, that thing, happened. Google hits for the less than 11 years between 9/11 and today now total 136,000. Gitmo, before prisoners, got 100 articles a year; once prisoners were moved there, it go well over 10,000 a year. Gitmo prisoners are 100 times as notable as their prison.

A score or two of Gitmo prisoner articles have been deleted, first on the basis of an outdated interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY rule that forbad all primary sources, and now an invocation of GNG that clearly contradicts the facts. Guantanamo prisoners have always been notable, and are a clear case for WP:IAR to bypass the contradiction with GNG. The article, like all Guantanamo prisoner articles, has been savagely cut, from a 32k article down to only 2k bytes Anarchangel (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Gitmo is notable, the prisoner issue is notable, individual prisoners are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination: notability isn't established for any of these articles. The above 'keep' vote obviously isn't based on the relevant guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:BLP) and is basically an example of a WP:INHERITED argument. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following, as once they all had the Summary of Evidence memo information removed, there is very little material outside of what is in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees and no notability other than their detention:

~~Keep~~Weak Keep for reasons stated:

Mcewan (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mcewan for taking a look at the articles. But I must also inform that the two articles that have been suggested for keep has issues.

Ohmed Ahmed Mahamoud Al Shurfa has only a passing reference in the media, which was coverage "on transfer of prisoners" rather than the "coverage of the subject" in particular.

Mohammad al-Shumrani There is no coverage in the news, Please provide links of the news you are referring to. --DBig Xray 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmed Ahmed Mahamoud Al Shurfa - fair enough - and changed to Weak Keep.

Mohammad al-Shumrani - You are right: my apologies. What I saw I must have imagined or it must have rotted away. Changed to Delete. Mcewan (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All articles don't have in-depth coverage by secondary sources, and therefore fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Still WP:BLP1E for all, being arrested and held in Gitmo is not a noteworthy enough of a single event to surpass 1E even where there is scant reliable Source coverage. Tarc (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my addition of two new refs to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the links Stuartyeates, sadly both of them are unable to establish Notability here

cageprisoners.com Primary source on Guantanamo Prisoners with its routine articles, does not establish Notability.
Guantanamo Bay detainee file primary source see the link above. --DBig Xray 11:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Also there is nothing WP:N about them. →TSU ^tp* 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.