Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muieen A Deen Jamal A Deen Abd Al Fusal Abd Al Sattar

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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muieen A Deen Jamal A Deen Abd Al Fusal Abd Al Sattar[edit]

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

This article is one of several hundred articles on individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay that are part of Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. While the Guantanamo Bay detentions are clearly encyclopaedic, I believe the individuals themselves, and this fellow in particular, are not notable in their own right. The article has ample references, mainly to primary sources from the US DoD, and also to secondary sources like the NY Times (which appears to have a special project online with a page on each of the 779 detainees, ). However, these sources either uncritically and without discussion re-disseminate the primary source information (e.g. the NY times docket which shows images of the relevant DoD document with a 1 sentence summary of the key stats on each detainee) or briefly report specific events in one or more of these individuals' legal travails (e.g. writ of habeas corpus denied); there is no information asserting importance of these people as individuals or providing fodder to eventually write a thoughtful encyclopaedia article. In short, I see no evidence of individual notability of this person, beyond that related to their being part of the group of detainees.

I'm limiting this AFD to this one individual, as a bit of a test case. While I believe the same logic applies to many of the other pages in the same category, I'm sure there are also some Guantanamo Bay detainees who are individually notable. Let's figure out community consensus on this example before debating whether there are exceptions to the pattern. Most of these articles were created by one editor. I left a note on his talk page 2 days ago inviting him to point me to a deletion discussion of a similar case that would have had a keep or no consensus outcome, so that we would not waste time if consensus had already been established and my read was wrong. He has not replied, but has since edited the article in question. (I came across the article through Random Article patrol). Martinp (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree that these individually are BLP:1E cases. CERTAIN people might be more notable than others. But by and large we don't have articles on the people that caused legal controversies unless they themselves are for some reason notable. We don't have an article on the people that filed lawsuits that made major changes in law, for instance, just because they filed a precidential suit. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and as such is likely not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by Anotherclown & HominidMachinae. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BLP:1E. No evidence of notability other than being held at Gitmo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not meet notability requirements. Simply being a Detainee does not make one notable.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2011 (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.