Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqibullah

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 keep. Weak consensus here that notability is establishable and reasonable arguments on both sides over whether it is a just a one event or not. Given that four other similar articles have all been kept and the opinions here, am closing as keep. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naqibullah[edit]

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

Non-notable individual only recognized for one event. Only non-trivial coverage a single article from BBC. Grsz¹¹ 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News archive shows more references than the one BBC story used in the article. See also SF Chronicle [1].Newspapers throughout the world apparently thought he was more notable than the average POW because he was a child prisoner, age about 13. Rather than "one thing" there are several things: he was arrested allegedly as an "unlawful combatant," interrogated every day at Bagram, then placed in a prison claimed to hold only the "worst of the worst" who had no rights under US law or the Geneva Conventions, subject to execution or life imprisonment, because Rumsfeld said the prisoners there were '"hard-core, well-trained terrorists" and "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth."' Then they were released, after what they describe as good treatment. Edison (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator appears to have selected 5-6 random Guantanamo detainees to try and delete, copy/pasting his nomination for each of them. Third-Party sources seem to exist for all of them, and no attempt is being made to improve or expand the articles, instead just jumping straight to deletion. AfD is not the proper route to ensure an article is fixed up - though it sometimes has that effect. This article needs work, yes - but it is about a notable individual andadequately sourced with reliable footnotes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all five of the articles in this nominator's initiative were known or suspected to have been minors when captured. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- At the time he was released, Naqibullah, was one of only a handful of captives whose identity was known. He was one of only a handful of captives to be interviewed, following his release. Multiple reporters sought him out. WRT to nominator's assertion that Naquibullah was known for just "one event". No offense to our nominator, but I am afraid this argument exposes a weakness in how we deal with "one event" articles, not a weakness in this article, or the others they nominated. The policy gives no guidance as to what should be considered an "event". It is a highly subjective judgment. And the policy is, or was, clear that some individuals, who were known for just a single event, would nevertheless merit an article, if the event was significant enough. Naquibullah was apparently captured just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was treated as an adult while in US custody in Afghanistan -- which human rights workers claim was a violation of international agreements the USA is a signatory to. He was subjected to the same brutal and illegal treatment while in US custody in Afghanistan as the adult captives. And when he was transferred to Guantanamo he and two other minors were given extraordinary treatment not given to the other minors sent there. The international agreements the USA is a signatory to obliged the USA to give lessons to all captives who were minors, but only Naquibullah and his two companions recieved lessons. Although the Geneva Conventions obliged the USA to inform the youths families that they were prisoners, their parents were only informed a few weeks before their return. Claims that all these events were just "one event" are essentially arbitrary. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Further to "one event" -- several years ago I read an argument someone else made that we should delete the article on former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair because it lapsed from BLP1e. He argued the only event Blair was known for was his support of George W. Bush war policy -- no one would ever have heard of him if he hadn't supported Bush's policies. The surprising thing about this wise-guy's argument is that he could have cited dozens of editorials that complained that Blair was simply "Bush's lap-dog" for his uncritical and dogged support of Bush. I think this wise-guy's joke made a very important point as to how subjective these judgements as to what is "one event" can be. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the nomination as an example of one event. The subject of this article did not play any "large role" in the context of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as evidenced by a lack of significant coverage. Yes, 2 reporters spoke with him after his release and return to Afghanistan (one from the Guardian and one from the BBC), but this is no indicator of notability as there is no wider coverage. The other articles from the Google News archive cited above are either direct quotes from those two reporters or trivial mentions. Perhaps the information contained in this article may be merged with relevant information about Guantanamo detainees in either a new or existing article, but this article does not fulfill our notability requirements. BWH76 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient V information to show notability in several events: in what he was accused of, in his role as a victim--which is what is the focus of most of the references, as his youth makes him one of the most egregious examples. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On reflection, changing my vote from keep. Just not notable enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be enough verifiable information available to assert notability, as DGG said. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (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.