Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saidullah Khalik

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Merge and redirect to Uyghur captives in Guantanamo. Any relevant information can be included in that article. There simply aren't the third party reliable sources that single out this individual for notability justifying the article. Tyrenius (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullah Khalik[edit]

Saidullah Khalik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I fail to see why this prisoner is notable. Guantanamo Bay detention camp's notability doesn't mean that each prisoner gets their own Wikipedia article. I find it analogous to making an article for each prisoner held at Rikers Island. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer -- I created this article, just a few hours ago.
    • I strongly disagree with the nominator, on all his points.
    • No offense, the comparison with Rikers Island is spurious. Rikers Island contains men who have been charged or convicted of crimes. Charging, prosecuting, and acquitting or convicting suspects is a well-understood and generally non-controversial process. Very, very few Rikers convicts will stir world-wide controversy. While the captives at Guantanamo, with less than a dozen exceptions, are not only not convicts, they have not been charged with a crime.
    • As captives go, the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, like Saidullah Khalik, are among the most controversial. There is a wide discrepancy among commentators as to the extent to which they might be pro-USA innocent bystanders.
    • I believe this article fully complies with all wikipedia policies.
      • Please don't confuse Guantanamo Bay detention camp and it's detainees. Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unquestionably notable; it's detainess aren't.
      • There are people world-wide that are being held without charges. Being held without charges (unfortunatly) doesn't make you notable.
      • It would be most reasonable to redirect to Uyghur captives in Guantanamo.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes extrajudicial detention is a world-wide phenomenon. With very few exceptions those captives held in extrajudicial detention are victims of totally closed, repressive, totalitarian regimes. With very few exceptions the closed and repressive nature means we don't know about most of these captives. For the exceptional cases, when we do know about the captives, where there are verifiable, reliable sources, I believe those case merit coverage. For the exceptional cases where the captives held in extrajudicial detention are being held by a country that is not generally considered a closed, repressive, totallitarian torture state, I believe that merits coverage. A side effect of this is that there might be more coverage of the exceptional cases held by relatively open societies, and relatively less coverage of those countries with no open press and ineffective judiciaries. But I don't see that as a good reason to suppress material that cites valid sources and complies with all wikipedia policies. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this guy can make Uncle Sam shit his pants in fear, surely that's pretty notable. Mykej (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing notable about this person and comments about 'Uncle Sam' soilings his pants are less than helpful. Nick mallory (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was puzzled by this comment. I re-read the article. I decided it needed more work to spell out what is unusual about Saidullah Khalik's detention.
    • The Bush Presidency asserts the Guantanamo captives enjoy an unprecedented level of review of whether they should continue to be detained.
    • There has been a formal review procedure, since August 2004. All captives are supposed to have a CSR Tribunal confirm whether they were "enemy combatants", and they are supposed to have annual Administrative Review Boards recommend whether they should be released or transferred, or continue to be held in detention.
    • However about as many captives have been released -- even though their Boards recommended continued detention, as have been released because their Boards recommended release. And, even though their Boards recommended release, those captives largely remained in captivity for years afterwards. Approximatly 40 of the 133 captives officially cleared for release of transfer in early 2005 remain in captivity in late 2007.
    • Saidullah Khalik is an example of a different, related phenomenon. The rules require a Board to convene, once a year, to make a recommendation as to whether he should be released. The record shows no Boards convened. Yet, he remains in detention. One of the clauses of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- John McCain's bill explicitly barring the use of torture -- was intended to explicitly strip from captives the right to initiate new habeas corpus petitions in the US civil court system. It replaced this with a clause to allow captives to request a more limited review in courts in Washington DC -- but only of whether the DoD followed its own rules in its CSR Tribunals and ARB hearings.
    • Is Saidullah Khalik a candidate for the DC courts reviewing whether the DoD followed its own rules? In the absence of authoritative commentators writing about his case, our readers will have to make up their own minds as to whether or not the DoD has not complied.
    • That he was supposed to have been reviewed in 2005 and 2006 is verifiable, and belongs in the article. That those reviews didn't take place is also verifiable, and also belongs in the article. Obviously this information can't be covered if the whole article is deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- there is a whole lot of Guantanamo Bay detainees with individual articles. See Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees Guroadrunner (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The US government has said that Guantanamo is only used for "the worst of the worst". That means every prisoner is of the same notoriety as Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde. Now you may or may not agree with the US government, but it's at least noteworthy that they think this. When an organization that has nuclear weapons offers an opinion you don't have to agree, but you should give them a listen. Mykej (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless there's something I've overlooked, there's nothing about this particular Guantanamo inmate that warrants an article about him when there is already an article about the ethnic group of which he is a member. In other words, his situation is exactly the same as that of the other Uyghurs, as far as I can see from the two articles. The situation of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo as a group appears notable, but precisely why this one man is notable beyond and above that is something I can't work out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every individual person there is notable, at least in his home country--the acts giving them notability was not in most cases engaging (or not engaging) in the conflict, but being the victims of an action which has attracted world-wide attention, and where everyone who has been there will be considered a martyr by one country or other large group.. At present we have trouble sourcing that end of things, due to cultural, linguistic, and source availability limitations. But they just have to be sourceable, and the basis is already here. DGG (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The detention at GB is likely to be most of the person's life, not a one-time event. And yes, I think at least the individual ones from his particular country will be notable in that country, and N is worldwide and permanent. DGG (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article it states in the header: "Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest." That is very believeable considering that the camp at one point had 750 prisoners. Why don't we, therefore, wait until they are stuck there for a long time. Until then, it's a WP:BLP1E.
  • I had a hard time understanding your last comments. "I think at least the individual ones from his particular country will be notable in that country, and N is worldwide and permanent." That sounds contradictory. Am I missing something?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saidullah_Khalik&oldid=1068842860"