Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed al-Darbi

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed al-Darbi[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a living prisoners (some from Guantanamo ) with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBig Xray 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on non notable prisoners because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. The case of the subject are already mentioned in list Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay (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] [4] [5] was Delete DBig Xray 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the subjects of the articles are not notable as they lack "sigificant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. As such, invididual articles for each of them cannot be justified and aren't necessary. What little information that does exist is included elsewhere and is sufficient. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are certain obligations on a contributor who nominates an article for deletion, or who weighs in on an Afd discussion. The nominator really should read the article carefully enough that their nomination is not misleading. When they make a group nomination they should really make sure all the articles they list trigger the same concern.
This nomination, however, asserts all the individuals were former Guantanamo captives. Actually Muhammed al-Darbi, Muhammad Assad and Salah 'Ali Qaru were never held in Guantanamo. They all spent years in the CIA's secret torture camps. I suggest this shows that the nominator lapsed in their obligation to read the article(s) in question clearly enough not to leave a misleading nomination.
Similarly, I suggest the closing administrator discount the "delete all" vote above as they seem to have taken the nomination's description at face value, and not bothered to actually look at the articles for themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muhammed al-Darbi , Muhammad Assad and Salah 'Ali Qaru. We don't cover routine events, non-notable people. There are apologists for the CIA's use of torture camps, who like to represent their operation as mundane, routine, run of the mill -- and thus not worth mentioning. This meme is entirely in contrast to the opinion of reliable legal scholars, experts in military law, and human rights workers. How many individuals did the CIA hold in their secret torture camps? We don't know, and they never published a list. If all we knew about these individuals was that they had been in the CIA's torture camps, then they should be listed in an article on the inmates of those camps. But these individuals have multiple references supplying details about them. Some might argue that these two men are examples of BLP1E -- which however, allows for exceptions for events of sufficient impact. Innocent men, held for years in torture camps, by a country that tries to present itself as a world leader in the respect for human rights, would be, I suggest a "one event" of sufficient impact to qualify for the exceptions BLP1e allows for impactful events. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saleh Mohamed Al Zuba -- an elderly captive, who needed heart by-pass surgery, who faced the ridiculous allegation that he was a drill instructor at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan -- even though there was no evidence he had ever been to Afghanistan. Al Zuba was sought out by multiple western press reporters, for interviews, who pointed out how the allegations used to justify his detention simply weren't credible. Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fahmi Salem Said Al Sani -- recently profiled as an individual cleared for release in 2007 -- who nevertheless remains in detention five years later. Benjamin Wittes, a senior legal scholar at the Brookings Institute, found Al Sani's decision to abandon his habeas appeal remarkable. Geo Swan (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri -- The Washington Post profiled Al Zahri's case as one of four captives' cases where the allegations against them were inconsistent. Peter Finn quoted Al Zahri make the very unusual statement, at his 2004 CSR Tribunal "I do pose a threat to the United States and its allies. I admit to you it's my honor to be an enemy of the United States. I am a Muslim jihadist, and I'm defending my family and my honor." Finn then casts doubt on elements of the allegations against Al Zahri. Finn quotes Benjamin Wittes, a senior legal scholar at the Brookings Institute: "His statement that he is a jihadist and wants to stand against America -- exactly what law does that violate? ... I cannot be confident that these facts -- even if proven -- would amount to a prosecutable case." Geo Swan (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Creator GeoSwan none of your above comments prove WP:NOTABILITY please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited--DBig Xray 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I don't intend to be mean about this, but I am afraid you misunderstand key wikipedia policies. When reliable sources write about an individual, that helps establish their notability.
  In your comments, in other discussions, you have rejected that official DoD documents establish notability, you have claimed it is biased -- which reflects current consensus.
  But you have also claimed that third party reporting that is based, in part, on official DoD documents is also biased, and you incorrectly reject that this third party reporting establishes notability. When your nominations are based on this fundamental misunderstanding of policy your nominations should be challenged over this misunderstanding.
  You have asserted that Guantanamo captives don't "deserve" coverage. Coverage is neither a reward or a penalty. These captives merit coverage because there is sufficient coverage of them in reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misquote me I have never made any general statement that Guantanamo captives dont deserve coverage. What I have said is prisoners with no independent third party coverage do not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Guantanamo is notable, agreed, but that does not mean anyone imprisoned there becomes defacto notable, read WP:NOTINHERITED . This is in accordance with policies for BLP articles. --DBig Xray 16:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the appropriate 'Fooian detainees at Guantanamo Bay' lists. As BigXRay states, the arguments for notability for these people are based on inherited notability and from passing references in articles that do not rise to the level of establishing notability, and also fail WP:BLP1E. Also Geo Swan's statment about "apologists" is a serious failure of good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These recent terrorism related AfD's all appear to be for articles that are reasonably sourced and have histories dating back years. At first glance these guys appear to be WP:BLP1E's, but many have garnered WP:INDEPTH write-ups and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond just the initial event. The AfD seems to suggest that there is a historical precedent set for deleting these articles, but while the articles are old, the AfD's all started in just the past two weeks. Nearly all have a recommended merge or redirect target, yet they all end up deleted. And then in some cases, someone recreates the recently deleted page as a redirect to the specified target, but only after the page is deleted. This selective deletion removes any potentially useful page history for the redirect, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Moreover, these group nominations appear to have been done half-assardly because they don't all conform to a specific template or category (aside from being enemies of the US). I want to assume good faith, but these issues seem really fishy. --Joshuaism (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and have histories dating back years." - WP:LONGTIME. Note that of these deletions, while they have "continued coverage", that continued coverage is just like the original coverage in nearly all cases - passing mentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge All as individually do not seem notable beyond BLP1E. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:02, 1 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.