Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir[edit]

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

WP:OR and unreferenced BLP created prior to BLPPROD process. Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per this diff Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took me all of 45 seconds to find and fix the ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to redirect retaining the contribution history -- A I wrote at WP:Articles for deletion/Khalid Saad Mohammed I think everyone here today, in August 2013, is acting in good faith.
A new contributor, who I believe is acting in good faith, turned four redirects, into a (weak) article. I suggested on the nominator's talk page that these article titles should be restored a redirects. While I think many individual captives whose names are currently redirected to the articles about the captives are notable enough to merit restoring those articles back to full article status, I think that respect for all those who have weighed in at earlier {{afd}}s should prevent restoring these redirects to article status until the restored article is very robust and is obviously not a candidate for deletion.
Several of the articles that have been deleted, for instance, were for individuals who were the subject of entire books, or had faced charges before the Guantanamo war crimes commissions. Of the articles titles that are currently redirected, I think restoration to full article status should start with those that are the strongest candidate. I think those restorations should be done cautiously, with a draft somewhere not in article space, where comments and improvements can be proposed, so it really is ready, when it is moved to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2013 (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.