Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo Bay detainee 753)

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo Bay detainee 753)[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There is a lack of WP:SIGCOV to claim notability of the subject other than court case and few of the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 13:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like many similar articles, this topic also has no secondary coverage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
Delete, after searching for news and book mentions, did not find any reliable sources to warrant the subject would pass WP:GNG, or WP:BIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I made some changes to bring this article up to date. I believe these edits show that the comments from those who favor deletion, due to a lack of references that establish notability should be discounted by the closing administrator -- it is just not true.
Only ten captives faced charges before the Presidentially authorized Military Commissions -- the ones struck down by the Supreme Court as unconsistutional. Zahir was the last one. I believe there is a meme shared by those who advocate deletion of the Guantanamo captives -- namely that events there are routine, mundane, not of out of the ordinary -- and thus not worthy of coverage. We don't cover certain kinds of routine events, even if the press has given them extensive coverage. I agree with this principle. I strongly disagree with the notion that the detention of the Guantanamo captives is routine.
My personal interpretation that conditions there are not routine is no more relevant than the personal interpretation of those in the delete camp that conditions are routine. What is relevant is what WP:RS said about Zahir's detention. I think the WP:RS clearly support Zahir's notability. Take the charges against him, and the hearings of his military commission.
- Legal critics point out that the main charge against him -- conspiracy to commit a war crime -- was not considered a war crime under international law;
- The rules required the prosecution to privide him with a translation of the charges against him into a language he could read. The prosecution did not prepare a translation, so he could participate in his own defense, and was not able to explain why this wasn't done.
- The prosecution could not explain why they did not hire a translator, for the hearing, so he could participate in his own defense.
- At his hearing the Judge could not tell his military defense attorney what laws and legal system he would be using. When pressed, he snapped at the defense attorneys.
- Strikingly, many of the reports from 2006, incorrectly stated Zahir did not have a civilian attorney present before the military commission, because he did not have a civilian attorney. Carol Rosenberg, the best and hardest working journalist covering Guantanamo, on the other hand, did interview Zahir's civilian attorney,the one who had initiated a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. She reported that he learned of the charges against his client by reading about them in the newspaper. This was, I suggest, remarkable. I want to be careful not to lapse from WP:SYNTH in covering this. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You continue to assume bad faith, and also he still does not meet WP:BLP1E for significant coverage outside of the one event (the trial). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are enough significant citations and quality sources to justify notability. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is never an adequate counter-argument for a one-event individual. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I take issue with some of Geo Swan's comments. I don't think that anyone believes that "the detention of the Guantanamo captives is routine." The detention is most certainly notable, but that does not necessarily confer notability on the detainees. By similar reasoning, one can say that the Oklahoma City bombing was far from routine, but few if any of the victims of that attack were considered notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E. Being detained, even in Gitmo, is not a notable event. Subject fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources has been met and Zahir is notable as being one of the few detainees to face the Guantanamo military commissions. Not a WP:BLP1E as Zahir is not "likely to remain, a low-profile individual" considering he is still incarcerated (how many people remain at Guantanamo?) and we can assume that having been accused of a high-profile attack against a notable journalist he will likely be charged again in the next judicial system set up to try Guantanamo detainees. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in reliable sources does not overcome BLP1E, and being incarcerated does not somehow invalidate the "low-profile" aspect of BLP1E. If all you can say about the man is "he's in prison", then there is zero justification for an article. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is significant that we can expect to be hearing about Zahir every three years until his release under Obama's plan. If he is a "low-profile" prisoner we should expect to see him released and never heard from again, otherwise it is safe to assume he is the worst of the worst. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply. First line, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." He's detained, has been detained and the likelihood (as by comment) of remaining detained has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Meets GNG, if these numerous sources don't meet GNG, nothing will, more exist that are not cited as well. Also, the 'low profile' or 'high profile' comments matter not, as if Wikipedia is a collection of the X most important topics, the only thing that truly matters is that we can properly account for information in the article without original research under GNG which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Who cares about some 'notability guideline', the guide is used to state 'whom' or 'what' MAY be notable, with a criteria upon which notability is assumed. GNG is a policy and has a broad use and interpretation, all of which have been met by even the most high of expectations. Even if you argue over WP:NTEMP its a one way road in this case, as the subject still is being written about 6 years later, and BP1E should not apply to an on-going matter of which is a hotly debated legal potato. 1E should be more on '1 day' or '1 week', because some individuals are notable for just that long through the media, but 6 years is quite different. Deletion serves to REDUCE information here, and without merit. Not every person is notable for being in a jail, but Gitmo is a weird case, largely condemned by one side, cautiously supported by another, yet the individuals themselves are denied rights and processes of their nations. Such individuals held in this 'extra-judical' case are easy to argue as notable, because of the circumstances of their imprisonment. If the individual meets GNG, then it is presumed notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 23 August 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.