Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)

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.

The consensus established in this AfD is in line with previous discussions that have held that Guantanamo detainees that have not received substantial coverage from reliable sources – excluding the US government agencies involved in their detention – are not notable. The arguments made by GeoSwan and DGG here are not sufficiently strong to make me disregard that consensus:

• The secondary sourcing requirement of WP:N seeks, inter alia, to ensure that someone who is in a position to do so has made a decision whether the subject is worthy of particular note or not (because we do not want to cover every person on the planet). Few if any editors here are willing to accept the files produced by various US authorities as sufficient coverage for that purpose. The reason for this is that these government agencies, even if independent from one another, have not produced files about the detainee because they consider him to be a particularly noteworthy individual, but because he is in their detention and they have to process him as part of their official duties, whether they want to or not. In addition, due to these agencies' own involvement with the detention process as described in the article, their files are best characterised as primary sources, not as secondary ones.

• Regarding the hypothetical that, if an American were to be detained in Guantanamo, he'd be considered notable: I presume that in this case, there would be US press coverage about him, causing him to pass WP:N.

• If the article can indeed be sourced further at some point in the future, as DGG suggests, then it can be restored at that date. Per WP:N, the mere mention of the name in sources does not suffice; there must be significant coverage about the man himself. In the meantime, I second Dhartung's suggestion that a dedicated Wiki may be a better place to cover Guantanamo detainees that are not individually notable in Wikipedia's terms.

A relisting is not appropriate because there has been ample participation and it seems that no important new developments that would need further discussion have occurred towards the end of the AfD.  Sandstein  09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)

Is this a biographical article? It looks more like a WP:COATRACK to me. Either way, the article also fails as the person is only notable for one event anyhow (WP:BLP1E). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – Actually, it appears that this person is not even notable for one event; none of the secondary sources I saw listed in the article mentioned him by name, only the OARDEC documentation of his detention and trial, which I would consider a primary source, mentions him. If it turns out that his detention in specific is mentioned in secondary sources, then it would be reasonable to keep this article, as it is more an article about the event (his detention) than the person. But as of now, there is no notability established here. — λ (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Several other participants have cited Lambda's observation in their own comment. Well, since Lambda made this comment I found additional sources, and incorporated them in the article.
    • Andy Worthington (October 2007). The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison. Pluto Press. pp. pages 180. ISBN 978-0-7453-2665-8. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
    • Alexandra Olson (January 23, 2005). "Detainee Has Last Guantanamo Panel Review" (PDF). The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-06-03.

• Delete per nom. Although Guantanomo Bay detainee camp is notable, it doesn't mean that every one of the 800+ detainees are notable. Notability is not inhereted. There's no evidence that this person has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, therefore falling far short of meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lambda -- definite WP:COATRACK problem, and besides the subject is not as notable as the article purports to be. Xihr (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've previously suggested that the editors documenting the detainees (and all the lawyers and tribunal judges and such) could start a Wikia to do so without notability limitations. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Lambda and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. Salaam is in substantially the same situation as Ajam -- the independent sources used in his Wikipedia article don't mention him at all, meaning that the article is really sourced only to documents relating to his detention and its review, which can't establish notability. A Google search was unsuccessful because "Abdul Salaam" is a common name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have since reviewed the Olson article linked above and the excerpt from the Worthington book, both of which have been made available since my previous comment. They don't change my opinion that Salaam is non-notable. The Olson article doesn't even mention Salaam by name -- I assume that the 30-year-old Afghan hawala operator it refers to is him, but someone who had read the original article only would not have known it had any connection to Salaam. The Worthington book has only three sentences devoted to Salaam and two of his relatives, in a book which is intended to cover every single Guantanamo detainee. This isn't a WP:BLP1E. This is a WP:BLP0E -- a biography of a living person notable for no events. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• No offense, but I am concerned over what I see as a conflation here between "noteworthiness" and "notoriety"/popularity. The first paragraph of WP:BIO states:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

It seems to me that WP:BIO is clear. It does not require notoriety/popularity. It merely requires that there be something unusual enough to deserve attention. There are lots of topics that merit coverage here where there is no, and never will be, any press coverage. If the wikipedia is going to be comprehensive it is going to have to cover lots of topics that aren't notorious/popular.

Thought experiment -- if the paragraph Worthington wrote about Abdul Salaam had been written about an American would it even occur to anyone to challenge it? I suggest it would not. (1) Being picked up in a random sweep; (2) held for years in a secret detention camp; (3) released years later, with no explanation. If we had an article about an American in this position, I doubt anyone would challenge it. Aren't all the captives in the same position as Abdul Salaam? No. Only one other captive's memos justified his detention because he worked for a hawalla. Hawalas were suspect because there was an unsubstantiated meme floating around that the funds that supported 9-11 hijackers had been transferred to them through a hawala called al Barakat. However the 911 Commission found that all the funds transferred to them had been sent via ordinary US banks.

WRT BLP0E Respondent, above, describes Abdul Salaam as someone known for zero events. Most of BLP is devoted to protecting the privacy of the subjects of our articles. The BLP1E sections seems to have been grafted on as an afterthought. And I think this discussion illustrates a weakness of this section. Deciding when something is just one event, or several events, is an entirely POV judgment call. I listed four five events the references document. I'd be grateful if respondent stated why the events I listed weren't separate events.

Taking BLP1E seriously? -- In another discussion another wikipedian suggested that the article on Tony Blair be merged with the George W. Bush article -- because no one would have ever heard of him, if he hadn't supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Their joke makes a good point. There is no good absolute dividing line between what should be considered multiple events, instead of one event. I think this section is so open to misinterpretation it should be removed from BLP, where it doesn't fit, to some other place. It is so open to misinterpretation I question whether it belongs in policy space at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article.

I disagree that this article is a violation of BLP1E.

• Captured in a routine sweep of his local bazaar in May 2002.
• Sent to Guantanamo in October 2002.
• Faced the very last of the 558 CSR Tribunals in January 2005, where he was accused of transferring funds for al Qaeda.
• His CSR Tribunal was particularly described by a DoD spokesman -- who explicitly obfuscated his name. Keeping the identity of captives secret is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions.
• During his first annual Review Board he faced only four factors justifying his detention. This is very unusual -- unlike what other captives experienced. Practically every other captive faced more allegations during their annual reviews than they did during their initial CSR Tribunal. Most faced at least twice as many allegations. One captive faced six times as many allegations second time around.

Please bear in mind that the Guantanamo captives were described as "the worst of the worst", and various similar description, by senior cabinet members of DoD officials. I suggest that anyone, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who almost everyone will agree is one of "the worst of the worst" merits coverage here.

And, I suggest that other captives, who faced allegations justifying their detention that may not clearly establish they were "the worst of the worst" also merit coverage. I don't think it is our role, as wikipedia contributors, to decide whether the allegations are credible for our readers. I think our readers are entitled to reach their own conclusions about the credibility of the allegations, and to reach their own conclusion as to whether those allegations really support descriptions like "the worst of the worst".

Some commentators above have made comments that suggest they may not understand that there are multiple separate, independent agencies here. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), set up in early 2002, was responsible for the captive's interrogation, detention, medical care, mail from home. The Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC), set up in July 2004, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush, had the responsibility of formally confirming earlier secret determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants". Part of OARDEC's responsibilities was to independently review the evidence against each captive, and prepare "Summary of Evidence" memos, for the officers charged with making the recommendation. And in doing so they reviewed reports prepared by the CIA, FBI, CITF and the office of DASD-DA. It is my opinion that this fully satisfies the policy requirements that sources be "independent secondary sources". I know some people think they don't satisfy the requirements because they are not "media sources". But this is a misconception. The policies don't require sources be "media sources".

WRT WP:COATRACK -- it lists about a dozen different criteria. I've reviewed its recommendations recently, and I can't honestly see that this article lapses from any of those criteria. One of the criteria in COATRACK talks about "wongo juice" -- the article that is nominally about one thing, but quickly diverges, and spends most of its bytes talking about some other topic, which the COATRACK author called "wongo juice". Now, if this article were to diverge from talking about Abdul Salaam, and spent most of its bytes talking about Guantanamo detention, in general, then Guantanamo detention would be the "wongo juice". But I don't believe this article does this. Yes, there is material in this article that is similar to other articles. But, I regard that material as necessary context. You will find other related sets of articles, like the articles on the chemical elements, also have material in common. It would be possible to strip out all common material from the articles on the chemical elements -- at the cost of leaving them essentially useless for anyone who didn't already have a PhD in chemistry.

WRT WP:NOTINHERITED -- I believe this challenge is based on a misconception. Challenger acknowledged the Guantanamo camp is notable. And, similarly, San Quentin, Devil's Island and Leavenworth are notable. There are differences between the captives in those other facilities and the Guantanamo captives. (1) The captives in those other famous facilities have not had Cabinet members repeatedly label them as "the worst of the worst", "very bad men", and "terrorists"; (2) Captives ended up in those other facilities through the normal, routine, well-established, well-understood procedures of a criminal justice system -- one with established rules of evidence and established rules of procedure. When there is something unprecedented about a captive in one of those other facilities, we have an article about him or her. And, when there is something outside of the routine about one of the captives in one of those other facilities, we cover them. The USA imprisons thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals charged with, or convicted of murder. And we have articles about practically none of them. But we have articles on guys who stand out, like Willie Horton or Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. I've written about this further, here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further to COATRACK -- this document doesn't, generally, recommend deletion as the answer to a perception of COATRACK. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability as demonstrated by the lack of coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications. RFerreira (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate an explanation of this phrase: "...coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications." I thought I was familiar with the relevant policies. I don't recognize this phrase. If it is from an existing policy I would be very grateful to have that passage drawn to my attention. My google search doesn't find the phrase "multiple and non-trivial independent publications"' anywhere on the project. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No reason to Google the phrase. This little box sits on the top of the WP:BIO policy page:---brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin -- Please note that the paraphrase of policy offered above is distinct from the direct quote from the WP:BIO guideline. Please note that I have explained why I believe these references fulfill the requirements of policy, and no one has offered a counter-argument. It is often repeated that these discussions aren't votes. It is my understanding that these are supposed to be meaningful discussions, where there is a civil exchange of opinions -- working towards reaching a consensus. It is my understanding that closing admins have the authority and responsibility to discount and ignore opinions that do not, in their opinion, comply with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I am not sure how WP:BLP1E would apply in this case, because the person doesn't seem to be notable at all amongst the crowds of hundreds of other detainees, and as mentioned by Lambda this person isn't even mentioned by name in secondary sources. I think Dhartung is on the right track with the suggestion of creating a Wikia website for this type of thing, if that's what you're interested in. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've asked this commentator to help me out by helping me understand what I should have done when I found additional references that specifically mentioned Abdul Salaam -- so he or she would have recognized that Lambda's criticism no longer applied. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Requesting the period of this discussion be extended to allow more time for debate. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Geo Swan for your message. I have reviewed the available sources and my belief remains that this person does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Sorry, JBsupreme (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because the article is probably sourceable further from sources in the country & languages concerned. I am saying this on the presumption that all of them will be regarded as martyrs and heroes by their supporters & subjects of interest from their countrymen. Our excluding this probably represents systematic bias. I can understand people wanting to delete them until this can actually be established, but I think our information should be preserved here in the interim. That there are hundreds of people in the same position is irrelevant to Wikipedia--if there's any generally accepted principle here, it's NOT PAPER. There is more individualized information than would fit into a list. But I do suggest that some of the common elements be removed--they do give an unfortunate impression of coatrack, and it would help to avoid that.. DGG (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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.