Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-09-12. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

On 23 October 2007, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Wikipedia is not a battlefield[edit]

WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a battleground".

I have been thinking, a month or more, that I should get some help from someone more knowledgeable about wikiprojects, in starting a wikiproject centred around the articles devoted to Guantanamo detainees.

I didn't anticipate that someone would create a wikiproject intended to delete articles related to Guantanamo detainees. Now obviously it would be contrary to Wikipedia is not a battleground to have two wikiprojects, where one was devoted to improving the same articles the other wikiproject was committed to deleting.

I am hoping that Crazy Russian, or other wikipedians committed to deleting the wikipedia's articles related to Guantanamo detainees, could offer fuller explanations as to why they think they should be deleted.

Even if it is unlikely that these explanations would convince me, I still think that stating the targets of the wikiproject more specifically would be important. The two last serious wikipedians who nominated articles related to Guantanamo detainees saw those articles as test cases, which, had they succeeded, would authorize them to propose a blanket nomination on remaining article. The last nominator only planned to release a subset of the articles related to Guantanamo detainees. The previous nominator planned to delete all the articles related to Guantanamo detainees. -- Geo Swan 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misinterpreted the purpose of WikiProject Deletion sorting. The objective of the project, is to sort deletion nominations into topical categories. So somebody who only cares about say, India related deletion discussions, can watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India and know when such a discussion is underway. The project relies on people to sort, so maybe 5% of AFDs get sorted, but it is a start. I usually sort discussions what I want to see a topical expert opine on. I think these project lists are more useful if we can get experts to watch them instead of advocates, but they are certainly not projects intended for deletion. GRBerry 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge technical problems[edit]

In various of the nominations to delete articles related to Guantanamo detainees some wikipedians have suggested taking the articles that haven't yet been expanded beyond the names, detainee IDs, nationalities, date of birth, place of birth, and the reference(s) to at least one of the transcript of their Combatant Status Review Tribunal; the transcript of their first annual Administrative Review Board hearing; and their "factors" memo, should be merged and redirected into a table.

The articles currently contain references that specify the page number within the large portable document format files that the DoD released allowed readers quickly go the detainees transcript. No other public source offered readers this information. The merged article must, IMO, preserve this information.
The Department of Defense has proven unwilling or unable to transliterate the names of the Guantanamo detainees in a consistent manner. When each detainee has an article devoted to themselves it is trivial to accommodate multiple spellings and transliterations using the redirect mechanism. I don't see any convenient mechanism for accommodating those detainees with multiple transliterations.

If the communities consensus is to substitute some articles with an entry in table somewhere, I would like to see this omnibus file, with the working references to the transcripts, and factors memos, created, tested and working reliably, before any merging and redirecting be performed. I anticipate it would not be trivial. -- Geo Swan 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Value of the page numbers?[edit]

I think a table or list is the appropriate treatment for the Guantanamo detainee list. I nominated Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani for deletion and my arguments are present over on this project page. The fact that Arabic names can be transliterated to many spellings isn't a reasonable justification for each "name and serial number" detainee to merit his own article. I think the value of the DoD report page number is low and wouldn't care either way whether it's in the table or not. Tempshill 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say you think the value of the page numbers of the transcripts are low?

And did you come to this opinion before reading any transcripts?

Could you please explain yourself more fully?

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories archive[edit]

[1]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 9#Category:Alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguard

articles archive[edit]

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). There were suggestions to merge this with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Redirecting this page there might be an option, but after reviewing that article, I have found that it does not accomodate biographies like this article, but only the names and some vestigial info. Therefore I will let the article stay and not merge it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i[edit]

NN ≈ jossi ≈

One of the noteworthy things about Alawi is the role volunteering for, and being employed by, two charities the USA has classified as tied to al Qaeda, appears to have played in his classification as an illegal combatant. I created an article about one of those charities, Al Wafa. I mention Alawi on that page, and link to his article. There is something strange about this. Al Wafa's headquarters are in Israel. It is hard to understand that Israel's security services would allow a charity based in Israel to be tied to al Qaeda. -- Geo Swan 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. However, having a page that lists the detainees in Camp Delta would be more acceptable. Individually they don't (usually) merit a separate article, especially when there's nothing beyond nationality by way of content. Also, is there a source for the information that this individual is detained? --Plumbago 15:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees or equivalent if possible, otherwise delete. By the way, jossi, consensus on the mailing list seems to be that nominations need more than just an abbreviation or two. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Plumbago's reasoning.
Delete Jwissick 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to list as above. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep Alawi merits an article because few Guantamo detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunal records can be downloaded. -- Geo Swan 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Do not create List of Guantanamo detainees, that would be no more notable than List of prisoners in San Quentin. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether such a list is worthwhile, I don't agree with your comparison. San Quentin is a perfectly ordinary prison, with criminals within. Guantanamo Bay is not the same sort of prison — it's used for terrorists, prisoners of war, and political prisoners. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So should we have a list of every political prisoner in the world? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan. In response to Zoe, yes. Chick Bowen 22:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to my original "Delete", Geo Swan has expanded the original article. However, if the expansion material is available online anyway (it seems to be a straight lift), why not stick with my suggestion (an article with a list all known GITMO detainees) and link to this information rather than simply reproduce it? --Plumbago 12:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "why not have a single article with links to the source documents, and let the readers follow the links themselves? Because it is not just a "straight lift". The documents are in portable document format. They are hard to read. Each .pdf consist of about a dozen different documents. The documents within the pdf are not all in the same order in all the detainees dossiers. But they look similar enough you have to actually scan them. So, you have to do a visual grep of something like a dozen pages.
In short it is a lot of work to find the allegations within the pdf. Go ahead. Look at the pdf yourself. Could you locate the allegation portion in less than two minutes? And you know what you are looking for. So, not a "straight lift". -- Geo Swan 00:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Geo Swan. My bad - I didn't follow the link to the PDF. --Plumbago 10:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ··gracefool |☺ 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge, per User:Zoe. Groeck 16:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the articles should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[2]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. - Hahnchen 03:16, 30 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Salam Bin Amer[edit]

No assertion that this is a notable person. According to the article on Guantanamo Bay there are currently 520 prisoners held there. It might be useful for someone to compile a list of them and put it all on one page, but I see no reason for each prisoner to have his own article. Brandon39 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jwissick 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (soon to be created) as per this AfD. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more notable than any other prisoner in the world. Do not create article as suggested by Brandon39, as that is also nn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article, and a few others, when I came across a few transcripts of the proceedings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The detention of the detainees, outside of the Geneva Conventions, is highly controversial. The procedure for determining their illegal combatant status was highly controversial. -- Geo Swan 13:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it might be the basis for a good umbrella article. You could call it something like Guantanamo Bay Detainees, and link it to the main article on Guantanamo Bay. That's a much more likely search term than the individual names of prisoners.Brandon39 19:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listing all the known Guantanamo detainees in one place is a good idea. It is overdue.

Trying to confine all the information about all the detainees to a single article -- that is what you are proposing, isn't it? This would be unworkable, in my opinion.

Have you considered how many Guantanamo detainees already have substantial articles? Here are some of them. Abdurahman Khadr Benyam Mohammed Jose Padilla Omar Khadr Mohamed al Kahtani Mamdouh Habib Martin Mubanga Murat Kurnaz Salim Ahmed Hamdan Shafiq Rasul Ahcene Zemiri Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul Asadullah Rahman Bisher Amin Khalil Al-Rawi David Hicks Feroz Abbasi Fouad Mahoud Hasan Al Rabia Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Awda Hisham Sliti Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi Jalal Salam Bin Amer Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i Jarallah al-Marri Jumah Al-Dossari Mehdi Muhammed Ghezali Moazzam Begg Mohamed al-Kahtani Mohamedou Ould Slahi Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef Mustaq Ali Patel Omar Deghayes Richard Belmar Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar Yaser Esam Hamdi

I believe a case can be made that each of these detainees merits an individual article.

This is merely a selection of the existing articles you suggest merging into one union article.

Let me direct your attention to the article 108th United States Congress. Note there are approximately as many members of the US Congress as there are detainees in GITMO. No one is suggesting that all the information about US Congressmen should be confined to a single article. Look at the article for Jim McCrery for instance -- it is hardly longer than the articles on GITMO detainees were when you proposed deleting this one.

Am I saying GITMO detainees are more important than members of the US Congress? Nope. However, would you disagree that some GITMO detainee are more important than the least active, most junior members of the US Congress?

Zoe seems to be saying that any articles about these detainees would be "America bashing" -- no matter how factual they are. I hope that they didn't really mean that comment the way it sounds. There is absolutely no way the wikipedia should shy away from factual articles, that avoid inflammatory language, just because some Americans find them embarrassing. I don't see anything inflammatory or biased in these articles, so far. And if there is something biased of inflammatory, thatI am overlooking, why shouldn't that prompt a discussion about how to improve the article, instead of the complete suppression Zoe seems to be suggesting?

Several wikipedia contributors have said here that it would be a mistake to make 500 articles, one for each detainee. Well, who is suggesting that? I didn't suggest that. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

On Friday I found a site where approximately ten percent of the documents generated during the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are available for download. I started writing articles about them. Perhaps I grew over-enthusiastic. I defended three of them here. I didn't defend the one on Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss. One has to pick their battles, and once I had really read through his dossier there wasn't anything I wanted to try to defend as notable, before a hostile audience.

I have created dozens of articles over the last year or so. Lots of them started out as stubs, no larger than these four. None have ever been tagged for deletion before. These four articles on Guantanamo detainees however, were tagged for deletion within a few hours of their creation. This gives the unfortunate appearance that, whatever justification is being offered for their deletion, a hidden reason is that reporting of events that reflects poorly on current US policies offends some American contributors, even if it is reported accurately, and without the use of inflammatory language.. -- Geo Swan 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guantanamo Bay detainees, with a small d. This vote applies to any other articles in AfD which relate to Guantanamo Bay detainees, unless I must vote on them individually. Alf ^melmac 10:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge with anything. NN. Groeck 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the article should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[3]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:48, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar[edit]

Not a notabile person. Article on Guantanamo Bay lists 520 detainees. No reason is given why this individual merits his own article. Brandon39 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jwissick 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (see AfDs above) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brandon's view is that not all the Guantanamo detainees are notable. I've kept my ears open for places where one can download the documents arising from the detainee's Combatant Status Review Tribunal. I've found approximately three dozen documents. I've started going through them. I think they are noteworthy. They reveal what I regard as noteworthy flaws in procedure and discrepancies. Note: I have added to the article since Brandon put his notice on it.-- Geo Swan 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the concern is that while one or two articles are interesting, 520 would just be in order to make a WP:POINT. Without some reason to assert that this detainee is more important than the 519 others, there is no reason to prefer this one. If we just have one article listing the detainees this would account for the noteworthiness while also not leading to an unnecessary proliferation of articles. (Or more likely a biased collection of 10 taken more or less at random) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The United States has been very secretive about who the detainees are, how they came to be captured, what they are accused of, and how much of the evidence against them is classified, and thus unchallengable. Some of the documents make for fascinating reading. So, I think that makes the detainees where the records are public notable. A single article that had a section about each detainee would grow unmanageably long. As the details about the detainees leak out I think we will find that a significatn number of the detainees merit lengthy discussion. -- Geo Swan 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable prisoner. Please explain how he is any more notable than any other prisoner in any other prison in the world. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- Geo Swan 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Suppose this was 40 years ago. Would you argue that, let's say, Rosa Parks, didn't deserve an article of her own? Would you argue that an article about her was just "America bashing"? Would you be telling me that I should find a neutral way to add her treatement to the article on Civil Rights? -- Geo Swan 13:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks was/is notable because she became a national (even international) public figure, as the central rallying figure for a regional political movement. But writing an article about each individual African American who participated in the boycott, or even each individual African American who was imprisoned under questionable circumstances in the United States, would not be warranted.Brandon39 19:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. NN. 143.127.3.10 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the articles should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[4]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:46, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss[edit]

Not a notable person. Same reasoning as in three other articles on named Guantanamo Bay prisoners that are already listed for deletion. Brandon39 16:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jwissick 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (see AfDs above) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect, all are nonnotable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Zoe. 143.127.3.10 17:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not redirect - Hahnchen 03:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article, and a handful of others. May I suggest that the controversy over the justification for ignoring the Geneva Conventions in apprehending these individuals, and the controversy over the conditions under which they were incarcerated will continue to grow. I am going to suggest that these controversies will be seen as at least as questionable as the incarceration of those of Japanese descent during World War II.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees[edit]

A list of nn people with a bunch of red links just begging to be created. POV anti-Americanism, WP:POINT created because individual people whose articles already created have been listed for AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not sure, but isn't this stuff better in commons? Anyways, get rid of all redlinks and NPOV the thing. And when I say get rid, I don't mean make an article. - Hahnchen 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sans broken links and NPOV. Gazpacho
Keep they might not all merit articles, but a fair number do. Not pov in concept at all. Far more important than many articles about U.S. news events that have a similar level of detail. It only reflects badly on America because Guantanamo Bay reflects badly on America - as many of America's traditional supporters agree, not to mention plenty of Americans. CalJW 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since when has it been anti-American to talk about those people that Americans have wrongfully incarcerated? Shall we delete Japanese internment in the United States too? FCYTravis 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthwhile list. Crypticfirefly 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An important list. Even if the items in a list are not that notable the list can be. --Apyule 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep arg... why are we trying to fracture a fractured debate even more? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list itself is important, the people in are not so they red links should be removed (if anybody wants to expand on individual detainees they can do that within the article as none warrant their own).
Keep The existence of the prison at Gitmo is significant, and the list of names is also significant, although individually they do not merit their own articles. There are many such articles on wiki; see, e.g., Category:Lists of people who were executed. Brandon39 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please zoe do not try to delete something to make a point that is a waste of our limited resources so please do not do it again Yuckfoo 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is yet another case, where a list is a good place to re-direct/merge minor articles to, instead of going through AFD for each one. No AFDs were needed to deal with this problem. The appropriate thing, was to discuss it centrally on the list's talk page, and merge/re-direct minor articles to the list. --rob 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but most of the people aren't notable enough for their own article. The ones that aren't should be redirected and the current red links should be removed. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, they all have articles. -- Kjkolb 07:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Anti-Americanism can be solved by editing the top paragraphs, the red links by making the names non-linking. Removing the names altogether as now has been done, was a bad step, which I will be reverting. - Andre Engels 11:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is vitally important information concerning a significant and continuing political event. The article needs serious improvment, and accurate sources need to be cited the for content of the first two sections and the names on the list. I see no anti-Americanism in the article as it stands, and it should be kept and improved, redlinks or not. And when was the existence of numerous redlinks a reason for deletion? Well done to Andre Engels for restoring the full list. --Cactus.man^>Reply 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, delink all the redlinks. Most of the names that do have links are so stubby they should be redirects to this list, anyway. Maybe someone could look into that. Proto t c 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you see? I see a few, which, at this point, remain small stubs. I see many that are several K in length, and I think almost all the remaining articles contain both noteworthy, verifiable facts and link to sources where those facts can be verified, or expanded.
I must be missing something. Could you please explain how redirecting an article back to the list improve the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a stub is a stub, waiting for expansion, not deletion, merging or redirection. --Cactus.man^>Reply 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any criticism of the Bush administration's attempts to rule the world with an iron fist is a sign of communism, terrorism, and hating freedom. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep These detainees have been at the cetner of significant public debate, and their identities are significant for that reason alone. Whether or not they are rightfully detained, whether or not they did in fact commit acts of terrorism or "unlawful combat", and whether or not it is proper that they be detained as they now are are significant issues both inside and outside the U.S. The identities of the detainees can be sued to help research facts relevant to the above debates. Highly encyclopediac, assuming that the list is verifiable, whcih it should be. DES ^(talk) 16:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, NPOV, remove redlinks, and maybe move to Guantanamo Bay detainees, as it's substanitally more than a list. -R. fiend 16:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, delink red links, as per Proto. -- SCZenz 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some cleanup work - anyone with 15 minutes to spare an do the rest of the redlinks. Have also tried to dePOV and cleanup some English. This article is an obvious keep. Anyone in Guanatanamo is notable. Vizjim 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, delink red links. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not really anti-american, and definitely important.--Alhutch 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a list of people of being detained in a specific location is not inherently/unavoidably POV. if it has POV problems, that in itself is not grounds for deletion. possibly move per R. fiend. Nateji77 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not anti-American POV. -- Decumanus 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of both historical and current interest. I just took a minute and delinked the red links for 'I'; it won't take long to do the rest. Chick Bowen 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the sourcing is suspect. needs clean up and sources. Joaquin Murietta 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer those name(s) of the entries whose sourcing you find "suspect"? Since I worked on trying to make sure there was at least one source for each entry I would be happy to set your mind at ease. -- Geo Swan 23:40, 6 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil al Banna[edit]

nn ≈ jossi ≈ 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Jossi, you tagged this article with Afd within one minute of my creating it. I'd like to invite you to volunteer a reason for its deletion. -- Geo Swan 02:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He did: nn (non-notable). And by the way, this article is close to a speedy candidate for not asserting notability (WP:CSD A7), though that's debatable. This fellow's only claim to fame is being a prisoner (of which there are hundreds of thousands) and for being a refugee (of which there are also hundreds of thousands). Perhaps you should provide a reason that this should be kept, but that's just a thought. However, unless this article shows some display of notability, I'll say delete. --Blackcap | talk 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep due to Vizjim's research. Makes me wonder, though: why is it that there's always more information in an AfD than there is in the actual article? --Blackcap | talk 15:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a prisoner isn't notable enough for me, no matter at which prison. If Geo Swan can expand it then I may change my vote. Wouldn't it be better for an article on UK detainees at Guantanamo summarising the prisoners as a whole? - Hahnchen 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although I haven't personally checked the facts, I'll assume they are correct and he is indeed one of the few notable prisoners there. When I originally voted, there was nothing to distinguish him from other prisoners. Nice work. - Hahnchen 17:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Jamil al Banna's case has been the cause of controversy (see [5]). The only redirect that would make sense would be to an article called something like Foreign-born British residents without citizenship imprisoned at Guantánamo. But even then the problem is that the citizenship issues for a Palestinian like al Banna are quit different from those such as Iraqi-born Bisher al-Rawi. For this reason I would strongly favour having a separate page for each man, where details of their cases can be given. The legal case around the internment of these men is the touchstone for formulations of international law in the last four years, and will probably help to define the concept of international law for another decade or more. For that reason each individual case is highly notable and encyclopedic. I've expanded the article a little, and would expect that this expansion will continue with input from more legally-minded contributors. Vizjim 10:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Vizjim. Dlyons493 Talk 13:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim; he is not just one of "hundreds of thousands" of refugees and prisoners.--Kewp 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Keep', totally agree with the vizster. jamesgibbon 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly notable. -Splash^talk 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Vizjim. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim. Loganberry (Talk) 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim. Mushroom 20:57, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 of the debate was KEEP. Once again, I disagree with the consensus, but am still abiding by it. — JIP | Talk 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Baker[edit]

I nominate Sean Baker for deletion because it is essentially a non-notable, vanity piece about a fellow that filed a law suit last May against Rumsfeld and the US Govt. There is very little about Sean Baker in the article. The first version of the article had no sourcing whatsoever. I asked the author to clean it up and now it has several news articles as sources. One of those sources mentions that there is a pending motion to dismiss. Should every plaintiff that files a lawsuit against Rumsfeld have a Wikipedia article? Or should we wait to see what happens in his case. Joaquin Murietta 15:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep Disclaimer - I am not the person who started this article, although the person who listed this article for possible deletion thinks I am. The person who listed this article for deletion has made the effort to check out a number of articles I have contributed lately. I am happy to have my contributions vetted and peer reviewed by any wikipedian who can be civil and fair in their criticisms.
- IMO opinion Baker's case is significant because there has been a debate as to whether the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay by their guards is overly brutal. So, when a guard volunteers to act as a prisoner, in a training exercise, and is beaten so severely that he has a dozen seizures a day, this is a significant, verifiable fact that can play a role in the public forming their own decision over how much force the guards should use.
- JM, the lister, has been making unwiki personal attacks on my grammar, judgement, maturity and intellectual honesty, in addition to violating wiki procedures by nominating articles for deletion over their perception those articles are POV. See the article on Carolyn Wood, which they nominated for deletion, over POV issues, without even putting an NPOV tag on first, or stating any specific POV concern. -- Geo Swan 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story was covered by the international press; that makes it notable enough for me. The present article does need NPOV-ing, but it sure doesn't fit any criteria for deletion that I can see. Haeleth 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Gator1 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a major participant of a fairly major political dispute with international media coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep worthy article, keep per Haeleth --Me or a Robin 11:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally notable news event.--OorWullie 08:55, 23 October 2005 (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.

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Sliti[edit]

I nominate Hisham Sliti for deletion. Although the prison conditions and hunger strike are notable current events, this individual is not. Joaquin Murietta 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 16:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclaimer, I started this article.

I have been reading the accounts from various detainees, through their lawyers. A number of the detainees specifically cited this specific beating as a key trigger to the second hunger strike. I think this makes him worthy of an article, -- Geo Swan 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes my notability bar. It could do with some expansion though, especially about his arrest. --Apyule 15:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In need of tidy up and expansion, but a notable subject. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:14, 20 October 2005 (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.

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 of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaker_Aamer[edit]

Should the individual article pages on all (around 200 in number) the guantanamo detainees be included in wikipedia? I feel these pages aren't substantial to wikipedia being encylopedic. There are more then 700 detainees in the US Naval base camp. If their names are released, should all their biographies be collected and article pages be created for all of them? If yes, then, I'd like to point out there are currently thousands of POWs detained by a lot number of countries all over the world. Would wikipedia be a place to host information all those detainees, from all over the world?

I strongly feel such pages are a seriously violating the notability criteria, turning wikipedia into what is infamously called, the junkyard of information. In this case, even the list of detainees is more than enough to be considered encyclopedic. We want and expect wikipedia to last long, like encyclopedia brittanica, 1911. Cos, in the longer run, in the next 50 years, there may be a number of wars, battles, detainees and POWs. I don't think wikipedia should have all the information relating to that. Though the facts and plights of the detainees may be important for the world to know, including all the information of every single detainee may be considered too trivial to be considered encyclopedic. Therefore I'm marking it as AFD on the guantanamo detainee pages, starting with the first one in the list. And I expect a consensus and mutiple deletion on all the detainee pages. Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Apparently not very notable.--Jusjih 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, are you kidding?!?!?! All those people are vicious terrorists!!! Of course they're notable. (re-enter reality). Delete. --JChap 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This person may at the moment not be notable to the world. But, if he is innocent and his detention at Guantanomo turns out into a scandal or, if he is convinced as a terrorist, this (short) biography may become very handy. As long as the US doesn't bring those people before a court, we have to keep an open mind in those matters. JoJan 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is one of hundreds that were detained in 'Gitmo. If he's not guilty of terrorism, he'll sink into nonnotable obscurity. If he's guilty, he'll sink into nonnotable obscurity. B.Wind 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JChap and B.Wind. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --P199 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understood the nominator to mean that this AfD had been noted as an AfD discussion on a page about the guatanamo detainees as a group or about the camps. But I couldn't find that giving of notice on probable pages nor can I see it in the nominator's contribution log. If this is to be a test case for all of the detainees, it ought to receive wider than average notice. I've gone ahead and notified the article's initial creator, but wonder if more should be done. GRBerry
Keep this one Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We have the space for all notable detainees. And as time passes and they become less important, the content can be trimmed down. This is part of the normal versioning of encyclopedias. That this detainee was involved in negotiating an end to one of the hunger strikes makes him more notable than the average detainee. Article has links to two reliable sources. I reserve judgement on the articles for other detainees until they are nominated - but I suspect that only a proper subset will be deletion worthy. GRBerry 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is not the Encylopedia Britanica or a specialty encylopedia. This project is one of the most extensive and braud reference works in history. The arguments given, if allowed to stand, would open a door for deletions of just about any article in the encyclopedia. ANY article that concerns a subject that may be considered not to be significant would by up for deletion -- and there are a LOT of articles that just about any member with an account here would consider insignificant. We'd stand to loose half the articles here. No, do not delete. Jason Palpatine 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It can be agreed that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia., but the same policy says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Plus, it cannot be figured where, 200 odd pages (as of now) on Guantanamo detainees will come under WP:BIO. The decision on these pages will pave way for a stance on notability in the absence of a guideline or policy. If not deleted, will it mean that any article on detainees in other nations as well be allowed to be created?? Instead, I'd suggest an article on the experience of the detainees be created and a line that this person helped end the hunger strike be included. We don't need a blue link and a separate page on this as well as all other detainees. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea, but someone should write that article first, then nominate appropriate detainees for deletion. After writing the article the editors of it should have an educated sense of which ones are worthy of their own article, and which are not. If we want a delete and merge outcome, which I expect will be appropriate for most of the prisoners, we need someplace to merge it to. I don't see any appropriate articles wikilinked in this one or in the category. It would probably be too much for Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States or Guantanamo Bay detainment camp which are already getting long, but ought to be a sub-page of one of them. GRBerry 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems encyclopedic to me. Keeping it doesn't hurt anyone, and may even help his cause. ··gracefool |☺ 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What rational reason could there be for deleting this well referenced series of articles that are clearly of interest to readers. - SimonP 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, if we don't keep individual articles than "people" will create a grand clusterfuck List of all prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay detention area that gets bogged to hell, and instead of 32k, falls somewhere around 6.5gb of text as they discuss each one. Look at all the Nazis we keep details on, even low-ranking ones. If they're verifiable (as these are, through their ID#s, court orders and detainee reviews) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GRBerry. An unfortunate but notable individual from a significant and ongoing political event. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the other Guantanamo articles Chez has suggested should be deleted.
- Chez, no offense, but your arguments in favour of deleting all these articles are based on unfortunate misconceptions. If these individuals were merely POWs, about whom there was no controversy, or misunderstandings, I would agree with you that they wouldn't merit individual articles. You are laboring under a misconception if you think they are POWs. The nature of their incarceration is a subject of great controversy largely because the Bush administration has chosen to not afford them the protections of POW, even though many legal scholars believe this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and members of the US judicial branch concur. You are laboring under a misconception if you think their identities remain secret. 5,000 pages of transcripts, containing some of their names were released on March 3 2006, followed by two lists of names, released on April 20 2006 and May 15 2006.
- Chez, there is an excellent site called "the Jurist", maintained at the University of Pittsburg law faculty. It is an excellent, very neutral, very reliable site that gives short articles on current legal matters. If there is no fair-minded, authoritative site about the principals involved in one of their reports, they write a backgrounder themselves. But if there is a fair-minded, credible page somewhere, they cite that page. They have cites some of the articles on individual Guantanamo detainees here on the wikipedia, as in this article.
- Chez, I saw you were on the recent changes patrol, and the new articles patrol. You cited WP:NOT. I suggest you re-read the portion entitled WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground, which reads, in part: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.... Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." -- So why did you wait until I had created hundreds of articles, spending hundreds of hours to do so, when, as a regular patroler, you probably noticed these articles months ago? Why didn't you write me with your concerns the very first time you noticed an article that concerned you? Other people did write me, during the last couple of months, when my efforts accelerated, once the DoD released the detainees identities, and 6,000 pages of transcripts. I took their concerns seriously, and modified my efforts to take their concerns into account.
- As to whether the individual detainees will "fade into obscurity":
  1. WP:NOT also says wikipedia is not a crystal ball. They might fade into obscurity. Or the nature of their incarceration and interrogation might remain the focus of ongoing controversy, just like Lynching in the United States, or Japanese American Internment and Japanese Canadian internment. These articles may serve as an invaluable resource if the American public were to decide that the inhumane conditions at Guantanamo represented the same kind of blot on America's record as the paragon of freedom and democracy and the rule of law as slavery, lynching, and the internment of those of Japanese descent during World War 2.
  2. Do you think we are going to run out of disk-space? The capacity of hard drives is doubling every two years. Wikipedia is a success. Expect to see the size of its disk-farm increase. Let me suggest that if it ever becomes necessary to purge articles, solely because of a lack of disk-space, that the candidates should be chosen purely on a "least recently used" basis. -- Geo Swan 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other articles that reference these articles, like:
  - charities accused of ties to terrorism
  - Casio F91W -- the "terrorist's watch"
- As Sherurcij noted, if all these articles was rolled into one article it would be overwhelmingly large. Not only would that make it hard for browsers to load, but it would be useless for other articles to reference it. Suppose the chariites article referenced the omnibus article you suggested, how would the reader interested in which Guantanamo detainees were accused of ties to Al Wafa, or Al Haramain Foundation, find that info? -- Geo Swan 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Amnesty International or a webhosting service Bwithh 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GRBerry, unfortunate yet notable. Silensor 06:48, 7 June 2006 (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.

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 of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abaidullah[edit]

Not notable, does not meet WP:Bio MilesToGo 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a victim of the Bagram torture and prisoner abuse Abaidullah fulfills a WP:BIO criteria -- namely "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". -- Geo Swan 02:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan. -- Captain Disdain 02:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion on whether the article in fact satisfies WP:BIO, though I suspect, per Geo Swan, it does. However, I would like to direct all concerned to the userpage of the editor who nominated this article, with the editorial comment nn terrorist, and to WP:POINT, and then ask them to think quietly for a moment. Hornplease 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I didn't spot that. Yeah, uh, I don't think we're exactly in NPOV country here, now. -- Captain Disdain 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems encyclopedic enough to me. Better than a Simpsons episode. Keeping it doesn't hurt anyone, and may even help his cause. ··gracefool |☺ 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "may even help his cause" comment is not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a site for advocacy. GRBerry 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with many other detainees, a notable individual from a significant and ongoing political event. The article is well sourced, no reason to delete. Comments by User:Hornplease are duly noted. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, article is not a "soapbox", it is simply a telling of facts known about the person. We have many American prisoners, whether they be arsonists, rapists and burglars with their own article, why would this be different? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news articles cited, nothing but the transcripts and official records. This is evidence that the individual did not achieve renown or notoriety, even though the events they were involved in are newsworthy. Contrast Shaker Aamer, another detainee that had been mentioned in two news articles by two clearly significant news organizations, the BBC and the New York Times. GRBerry 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable enough according to WP:BIO JoJan 16:55, 12 June 2006 (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.

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 of the debate was keep. Fl owerparty☀ 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasool Shahwali Zair Mohammed Mohammed[edit]

Not notable, does not meet WP:Bio MilesToGo 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator appears to be a relatively new wikipedia contributor, and may be unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and procedures. A couple of days ago nominator put a {pov-check} tag on this article. The placed a one sentence question on the talk page, asking if others agreed that the article seemed "anti-American". I asked nominator to explain, specifically, what they thought was anti-American. Instead of engaging in a dialogue nominator responded by nominating this article for deletion. WP:DEL says that a perception that an article expresses a biased POV is not grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground says:
- "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." -- Geo Swan 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disclaimer: I started this article.
- I believe that the Mohammed does satisfy the WP:BIO criteria -- namely "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events".
- I think it bears repeating that the wikipedia is an international effort. Afghanistan has been devastated by decades of war. Most Afghans are totally illiterate. The loss of a single doctor, like Mohammed's brother, willing to serve in a rural area would be notable, in Afghanistan. Mohammed is not a doctor. But he is a trained medical technician, and he ran their clinic's well equipped lab. So, his loss too is notable in a country where most people are illiterate. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Mohammed, and his brother, the doctor, were determined not to have been enemy combatants after all. His brother was released. Mohammed remains in detention, even though he was cleared over a year ago. -- Geo Swan 04:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion on whether the article in fact satisfies WP:BIO, though I found myself interested in reading the details of the case against a particular member of a group of individuals - the Gitmo detainees - that are indeed, very notable. However, I would like to direct all concerned to the userpage of the editor who nominated this article, and to WP:POINT, and then ask them to think quietly for a moment. Hornplease 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:CSB, but serious POV trimming required. Possibly speedy keep per WP:POINT, but that would be stretching it. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems encyclopedic enough to me. Better than a Simpsons episode. Keeping it doesn't hurt anyone, and may even help his cause. ··gracefool |☺ 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with many other detainees, an unfortunate but notable individual from a significant and ongoing political event. The article is well sourced, no reason to delete. Comments by User:Hornplease are duly noted. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, article is not a "soapbox", it is simply a telling of facts known about the person. We have many American prisoners, whether they be arsonists, rapists and burglars with their own article, why would this be different? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:12, 10 June 2006 (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.

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli[edit]

Also nominated: Kako Kandahari

This is a test AfD. Here are two articles of which sort there are dozens more in Category:Guantanamo Bay detainee stubs. These two gentlemen are detainees at Gitmo - and there's nothing more to say about them. Both articles contain their names, origins, detainee numbers, and the same stock paragraph with the same two external links. These two (and the dozens who will follow) fail the "multiple non-trivial published sources" test with gusto, and it is recommended that we Delete these articles. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Leibniz 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Government sources verify their existence. Government sources have been judged non-trivial for school AFDs. The article could give reasons for their detention at Guantanamo, and these reasons will eventually reach the public domain. Catchpole 14:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is not being challenged. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well my opinion is being a Guantanamo detainee is notable. Catchpole 14:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Article can easily be recreated once any real information comes to light, for now it's rather pointless. Artw 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that being arrested on suspected terrorism charges doesn't automatically make you notable. If these guys do something important, or more information comes to light, then the articles will be useful. For now, it's just a prison record. --Wafulz 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of individual notability other than being a Guantanamo prisoner, which isn't enough, IMHO. Sandstein 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, which should at least contain the basics of name, origins and detainee numbers, but appears to have nothing on these two. I think the relevant WP:BIO standard is the one about renown or notoriety due to involvement in newsworthy events. If there is such renown/notoriety, then the articles should reference articles other than the government sources. I would disagree that there is nothing more to say; at least for Ibrahim, the link to the summarized transcript presents Ibrahim's statements during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, allowing at least a bit more to be learned. Absent the other side of the story, we can't write a NPOV version of these additional matters, so the article really can't expand more. GRBerry 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good idea to list them there if they're real (are they? we have no specific sources as to these two) but I would hate to see thousands of redirects extended there from all these names... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do have specific sources. If you look more closely at the links described as summarized transcripts, they are to two different pdf files, and the text around the link specifies the pages within them. (Not the same link as described in the nomination.) I followed that link for Ibrahim and read the nine cited pages - Ibrahim at least is real. I didn' follow that for the other, but I expect you will find enough evidence that they are also a real specific individual. Given the general difficulty with putting names of Afghans and Arabs into the English alphabet, there may be difficulties due to different transliterations being used at different times, but if so, there should be redirecting from the different transliterations to the most accepted one. GRBerry 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually read the Kako links, not the Ibrahim ones, and found a no mention of his name anywhere in the nine pages of interrogation transcript. Besides, why were these two not on the WashPost list and the list the DoD released pursuant to some court order, which were used to put together our list here? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know why the various lists are incomplete and/or inaccurate. The "Sources" section of List of Guantánamo Bay detainees definitely says that the Washington Post list contains about 420 of 750ish detainees. There is at least speculation that the DoD list is/was incomplete by specifying only military holdings, but that wouldn't explain people who had CSRTs. Also see Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list. GRBerry 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So what's our bottom line here? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Checking further, Kako is also listed in [6] (page 10) and [7] (page 11). So they are both real individuals. I suspect the omissions from the list are editorial errors/oversight. They ought to be on the list, which for these I think should be via merge/redirect. I tested 6 of the others in the category and found only 2 of the 6 in the list. Not a statistical sample, but I suspect that we have a massively incomplete list, and merge/redirecting the ommissions would be the fastest way to complete it. I also think that expanding the list to include the detainee numbers, painful as it might be to do by hand, would be the best way to check for duplications due to name variants and omissions. GRBerry 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Crazy Russian, there are many things about your plan to delete Guantanamo articles that I don't understand. Let me ask you to answer one of the simpler questions. you wrote, right above here that you read the Kako links. Are you really saying that you read the link to his transcript and could not recognize that it contained a claim of a terrible injustice? Can you explain why you don't think this claim of injustice is "notable"?
      - I expanded the article now. I have read something like half the transcripts. But I hadn't read Kako's until now. He is the fourth guy whose transcript I have read who was rounded up, and thrown in Guantanamo, for managing or guarding an armory.
        Hiztullah Nasrat Yar and Nasrat Khan were not as articulate as Kako's boss. But the Tribunal told him they couldn't find Rahim Wardak, the witness they requested, who they said could substantiate their claim that they were hired by the Afghan Defense Ministry to guard the armory. The Tribunal described Wardak as "an official" in the Defense Ministry. He was then the Deputy Minister of Defense. He is now the Minister of Defense. Now maybe they are lying. But isn't it noteworthy when we learn that the US intelligence establishment hasn't made any attempt to substantiate -- or refute -- the detainee's claims of innocence?
        
        Nasibullah, similarly, was sent to Guantanamo when he was found managing an Armory. He however was able to give a credible sounding description of the inventory control he maintained over his weapons, and he was one of the 38 detainees the Tribunals determined had never been an enemy combatant after all.
        
        Now Kako, and his boss, may have been lying. I know Bush apologists assert that every detainee who claims he was tortured or abused, and every detainee who has a reasonable sounding claim of innocence, is really just an al Qaeda operative, who was trained to lie. But Kako and his boss sound like they had easily verified alibis. Surely it is notable that the US intelligence didn't make any attempt to verify their alibis? -- Geo Swan 23:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Disclaimer: I started this article.
- No offense to CrazyRussian, the guy who nominated these articles, but I strongly disagree with your interpretation that "there is nothing more to say about these guys". Of course there is plenty more to say about these guys. The articles are stubs, with a lot of room for growth. As GRBerry pointed out each of the references in these outwardly similar articles contains the information to find the detainees transcripts. There are transcripts for 354 of the 759 detainees.
- Some of the Guantanamo detainees would be notable, even if there was total agreement, around the world, that President Bush was authorized to strip the protections of the Geneva Conventions from these prisoners. Abdullah Mehsud and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, for instance, former Taliban commanders, who "returned to the battlefield", following their release. Other detainees say they are simple farmers, or innocent humanitarian aid workers -- not combatants at all. Their notability arises because of the unbridgeable chasm between who the Bush administration claims they are and who their transcripts establish they are. The Denbeaux study published a methodical, systematic, statistical analysis of the allegations against 517 of the detainees whose cases were considered by Combatant Status Review Tribunals. What they found was at odds with the grandiose Bush administration claims that the detainees are all terrorists. When the Denbeaux study researchers analyzed the allegations, in detail, they found that more than 55% of the detainees aren't even accused of association with a hostile act. (Note, this doesn't mean the 45% who are accused of association with a hostile act are guilty of association with a hostile act.) I was able to devote some time to start to flesh out Al Sehli's article since it was nominated for deletion. The allegations against Al Sehli are in line with the conclusions of the Denbeaux study. He is one of those 55% who is not accused of a hostile act.
- Approximately a dozen articles about Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion so far. People leave messages on my talk page, or on the talk pages of articles about Guantanamo detainees. So, I have read lots of comments about how many of the detainees are notable. One user made the assertion when voting to delete one of the earlier article on Guantanamo detainees that ANY articles about Guantanamo would be inherently POV. and just an excuse for "America-bashing". I think that is nonsense. I think any topic can be written about from a NPOV, but that some topics just require a bit more effort. Based on the opinions of Users like that one, I have a theory that there is an inverse relationship between how firmly one of my correspondents accepts the Bush administration line that since the detainees are all terrorists it doesn't matter if they are stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law.
- Sorry GRBerry, I strongly disagree with the position you expressed that since we haven't heard the intelligence analysts (classified) evidence against the detainees we can't write NPOV articles about them. The cases of these prisoners are highly controversial, so, when I write about them I make the effort to prove Zoe wrong, and prove that someone can write about controversial topics from a NPOV, if they make enough effort. People do challenge me. And I reply to all civil challenges that I am showing bias with a request for my correspondent to be specific about the particular passages they find biased. Except for some very occasional, very trivial lapses, my correspondents can't be specific. I think this means I have succeeded. I think this means that, contrary to the fears of contributors who were afraid that Guantanamo article would only be an excuse for POV America-bashing, these articles are neutral. -- Geo Swan 12:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, GS, way to go, but nobody has said a word about America-bashing. Why don't you write a comprehensive article about "the unbridgeable chasm between who the Bush administration claims they are and who their transcripts establish they are"? With this many sources, it could achieve featured status. You can even use examples from dozens of these guys' bios. But to make individual articles about the person - only if they respect WP:BIO. I don't know about Commander Maulvi - but these two dudes Ibrahim and Kako fail WP:BIO. Let's keep this AfD debate local. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sure you aren't being serious. I am sure we all know that an article about the unbridgeable chasm between who the Bush administration claims they are and who the transcripts establish they are would be much more controversial than the existing articles, which let the bald, verifiable facts speak for themselves. It would be impossible to write much of an article on the unbridgeable chasm without indulging in original research
    - I am just looking at WP:BIO. The author of WP:BIO states it is not a real policy. The author argues that many wikipedians regard it as implied by three real policies. WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I don't believe there is any question that these articles were written from verifiable sources, do not indulge in original research, and are written from a neutral point of view. -- Geo Swan 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable information and documenting these people is an important public service. - SimonP 03:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... there's the final word! All hail the Nerd-King of Wikipedia! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - lol
- Also solicited [8] - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops... this is inappropriate... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : the article is NPOV and follows the guidelines of verifiability. As to notability : any detainee in Gunatanamo is notable in my eyes. Their story may even become more notable, once the Bush Administration is gone and historical truth (whatever that may be) will emerge. JoJan 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also solicited [9] - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somebody mentioned this above, but as there's a lot of indenting already I'll start a new comment. As I've just written on my talk page, I think that the unique information in each article merged into a list would be a definite keep. Indeed, as someone else has said, there's enough material here to make a Featured List. I don't however see the value in boilerplated articles about hundreds of people with dubious individual notability. --kingboyk 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GRBerry. Most of the content of this article would be identical with that of several hundred others - that has "merge" written all over it. The collected article would certianly be highly important and notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by the way, I would like to commend User:Geo Swan on his hard work. Not changing my opinion about the article, but the sheer effort in building, expanding, and defending User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion is impressive. They are well written articles, even though I still think most of them can be merged together. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have thousands of articles about American bank robbers, kidnappers and rapists - I forsee somebody googling the names of individual Guantanamo detainees sooner than I see somebody googling random North Carolinans convicted of 2nd Degree murder. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "solicitation"
- I have created a table summarizing the dozen or so previous nominations to delete article related to the Guantanamo detainees -- here. Feel free to read the previous discussions. Executive summary? IMO a significant portion of the comments of those who did not want to keep the articles explained their votes in politicall partisan terms. IMO they wanted to ban articles that they felt reflected poorly on the current US executive branch policy, without regard to how well document it was, or whether it was written from an NPOV.
- The Nominator has put notes following some of the votes, pointing out that I let some other wikipedians who had shown an interest in previous nominations to delete Guantanamo article know about this nomination. The nominator and I have had an exchange on our talk pages where he explained why he thought this was a mistake on my part. I am not sure I agree with his reasoning. But, in the interests of co-operation, if I learn of a new nomination to delete a Guantanamo article, or, if I learn of a nomination intended to serve as a test case to delete all the articles or some portion thereof, like this one, I will update this table. If you want to know when a file is being nominated for deletion you can put the file that contains that table on your watchlist. -- Geo Swan 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lo and behold, we already have a wikiproject for that very thing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has gotten a lot bigger since it was nomed but I'm not convinced all the detainees are notable enough for WP in their own right. Is there somewhere else this info could be transwikied to? It's not like WP needs the traffic. Delete or transwiki if possible. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The expansion was done (or at least doable based on my research previously) using only the second of the two links described in the nomination as stock. This implies to me that many of these could, given the time and effort, be so expanded. With 347 stubs remaining in the category these are a test case for, I certainly don't expect anyone to get all the expansion done right away. But, I also continue to believe that merging to the list is sufficient handling for those not meeting the renown/notoriety test and/or lacking other reliable sources. GRBerry 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 347? The 6,000 pages of documents the DoD released contained transcripts of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings for 354 detainees. I know that a considerable number have already been expanded. I couldn't tell you if half have been expanded yet. Frankly, I didn't anticipate people would want to delete perfectly good stubs offering only the justification that they look too similar. Unless someone wants to count, the number of unexpanded stubs would be somewhere between one and two hundred.
- Lar, you say you are not sure whether all the detainees are notable enough, in their own right? Can I ask you if you have read any of the articles where the allegations against the detainee and/or the detainee's testimony had been included, that you could offer as an example of a detainee who was not notable enough to merit an article? It would be helpful to me to hear what other people think is insufficiently notable to merit an article. I expanded Kako's article this afternoon. His testimony claims a great injustice. Now that his article has been expanded, are there any of those who voted to delete who still think he is not notable enough to merit an article? And, if you still thinks he doesn't merit an article, I would really appreciate an explanation. -- Geo Swan 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verified information, notable individual. --TheM62Manchester 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable fella. Lincher 17:14, 25 August 2006 (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.

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani[edit]

The articles subject is not notable, he is merely one of many prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. The lack of information in the article goes to support this. The article is primarily made up of Combatant Trial information and nothing about the articles subject but his name and prisoner ID numebr to mark him as notable. NuclearUmpf 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my own above reasoning, lack of notability. --NuclearUmpf 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. Unless the author could describe specifics of his case (and how it's unique) then this article would qualify for NN Bio. WU03 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 14 earlier nominations to delete articles about Guantanamo Bay detainees one of the recurring themes is for people to cite WP:BIO -- as if it were an official policy. It isn't. It is described as a shorthand to test whether the article might violate WP:VER, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV. I don't believe this article, or any of the other Guantanamo Bay articles violates those real policies.
- I have started to expand the article.
- Why is Al Juhani notable? WP:NPOV proscribes me from spelling this out in the article. But, it seems to me that Al Juhani didn't understand what was going on. He is not the only detainee who couldn't understand the difference between the Tribunal, and their regular interrogation sessions. He seems to not understand that this was his sole chance to explain why he should be released. He really blew it. Is this unique? No. A minor fraction of the detainees made the same mistake.
- Is Al Juhani among the dozen most notable Guantanamo detainees? No. But those working on the wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo detainees, and the camp can't reach the conclusions for the readers. They have to be allowed to reach their own conclusions as to whether the process was fair, whether it was complete, whether the Tribunal's officers mandate allowed them the authority to access all the material they needed to reach a fair conclusion. In order for readers to do that, they need access to what actually happened at the Tribunals, even for detainees who may not have had copious numbers of newspaper articles written about them.
- In addition, please bear in mind that whether each of these detainees was entitled to a Geneva Convention competent tribunal is a matter of great controversy. If these detainees were American citizens no one would question, for one second, whether they merited articles on them. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- GRBerry 02:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles are usually kept, because they are easy to expand. However, the pdf file that is a target of the second link, and thus creates the ease of expansion, seems to broken at the DoD website at the moment. At least page 29 gave me a square white box less than 1 cm by 1cm the first time, and then completely failed loading the second and subsequent times I tried to load. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli for the most recent AfD discussion (a test case) on stubs like these. GRBerry 02:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, we've been over this ground a dozen times - the articles are notable, we have hundreds of Nazi officers with articles, there's no reason we can't have these (relatively) few identified insurgents and leaders with articles. I'm getting sick of people just nominating a random new GB-er for deletion as soon as another AfD fails. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is over 40,000 insurgents in Iraq, do you think they all deserve articles? Being a soldier in an insurgency does not make someone notable, his article does not detail even that he is an insurgent, just that he is at Guantanamo. --NuclearUmpf 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or merge~~, producing to unmerge when GRBerry's link starts working and it can be expanded. Kappa 06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is working now. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change to plain Keep, good article, wanted poster clearly establishes fame or notoriety. Kappa 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK after a message from Umpf I think I'll have to discount the wanted poster. I still think keep for the convenience of users but I believe a merge to some kind of omnibus is acceptable although not desireable. Kappa 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of a set, however the article itself contains no information. Wikipedia is not a depository for US captives. Someone said they are easy to expand, but the expansion is not related to the subject of the article at all. The article is about the man and none of the article except the first sentence contains information about him. The rest is fluff, how many articles are there gonig to be that contain the same information no the tribunals? The tribunals are notable, the people involved are not. Perhaps merging these people into a list is best, as there currently is no content on these people to support seperate articles. --NuclearUmpf 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You assert that "...the article itself contains no information." This is incorrect. The link, to the article, is unique. The DoD released 6,000 pages of transcripts, in response to a court order, forcing them to identify the detainees, after they had exhausted all their avenues of legal appeal. But they didn't fully comply with the court order, at first, because those transcripts didn't have the detainees names, only their detainee ID numbers. Seven weeks later they released a list of names, and detainee ID numbers, making it possible to match the transcripts with the detainee, by name. But doing so required visually scanning through all 6,000 pages. I did the work of correlating all the transcripts with the detainees by matching them by their detainee ID number. It took about 20 hours.
- There is no other public place on the internet an interested reader can use to find a detainee's transcript without spending hours visually scanning through all 6,000 pages of transcripts. Those transcripts are not machine readable. Scanning through them takes hours.
- So, sorry, your assertion that "...the article itself contains no information." -- is incorrect. The link itself is an unique, valuable resource, since it potentially saves readers hours of useless work.
- As for the material that briefly summarizes the purpose of the Tribunals. Yes, those same paragraphs occur in other articles about Guantanamo detainees. And, if you were to look at the articles about the chemical elements, or the members of the US congress, you would find that they repeated material that was in articles about the other chemical elements or the other members of the US congress. So far as I am concerned this is not a meaningful criticism. When I started writing these articles I didn't put in the introductory paragraphs about the Tribunals, and, from the reactions I got, some readers really needed to have the context laid out for them in the article itself. Those paragraphs are brief. I believe they are accurate and written from an NPOV. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentThere are 50 articles that all contain the same content in one PDF file and one other article. Your reason for this is not because they are notable, but because its great for people who want to find their testimony? Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for easy to find testimony. --NuclearUmpf 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where did you get the idea that the DoD released all 6,000 pages of documents in one PDF file? They released the documents in 75 PDF files, which varied in length from 16 pages long to well over 350 pages long. What do you mean when you refer to "easy to find testimony"? Are you stating that the unique links I spent 20 hours crafting are redundant, because the testimony is "easy to find"? Or, are you arguing that we shouldn't be helping readers find that testimony? If this is what you mean could you give a fuller explanation as to why you believe this? -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- reasons given in response to other contributor's questions.
- Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the edits to it are from me.
comment -- merging to one large omnibus article is unworkable, for a number of reasons:
1. That article would be hundreds of kilobytes long.
2. links to the individuals, if redirected to a large, omnibus article, would rob the readers of any of the value of having the links in the first place.
3. lol. Many other reasons, but I have run out of time to explain. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History -- Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion -- Geo Swan 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it hundreds of megs if none of these articles actually have individual content. The same PDF can be linked for people to reference each persons testimony, testimony which apparently ammounts to, "I will not answer your questions." All of the names can be put into a single article with an explanation of what the tribunal is and a link to the testimony, why are we creating individual articles for each name, splashing in the same tribunal information into each of the 50+ then a smalle xcerpt of their testimony which ammounts to "no I didnt do it" "No I will not answer your questions", this is honestly bordering on fluff since the testimony isnt saying anything more then, "not guilty" but doing it in 3 paragraphs instead of a sentence.
- Sorry, that is kilobytes, not megabytes. My brain wrote kilobytes, my fingers wrote megabytes.
- Articles that are larger than dozens of kilobytes raise problems for wikipedia readers who have slow connections or are using computers with limited resources. They are also dozens of pages long, raising a human-factors problem when they are being read. -- Geo Swan 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your characterization of the detainee's testimony as nothing more than "not guilty":
  - How many articles did you read?
  - Are you aware that the Bush administration routinely describes these guys as the "worst of the worst"? Only last summer the camp commandant Admiral Harris, said "there are no innocent men at Guantanamo". At that time Murat Kurnaz, Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari and Nasrat Khan were half way through their fifth year of extrajudicial detention. When examined, in detail, each of their cases exposes highly alarming hints of dreadful miscarriages of justice.
    - Murat Kurnaz was accused of being friends with the Elalamumble suicide bomber. Except this suicide bomber was alive, and well, and still living in Germany. And both Kurnaz and his friend were thoroughly investigated by German counter-terrorism officials, who cleared them both.
    - Al Kandari was one of the two dozen detainees who was being held, in part, because he was captured wearing a Casio F91W, a cheap digital watch, that has been used for the timer portion of time-bombs. Except, if you do a google image search, you can quickly determine, from the description in his transcript, that he was wearing the much more expensive Casio Prayer Watch.
    - Nasrat Khan acknowledged that he had joined with other patriots to throw foreign invaders out of his country -- except those foreign invaders were the Soviets. Khan had fought against the Soviets when the mujahideen were receiving training, funding, weapons from the USA through the CIA. This was when the CIA, in order to put a spoke through the wheel of the Soviets, encouraged fundamentalist Islamic militants from other countries to go to Afghanistan, to fight foreign invaders. Khan, a very old man, had sufferd a debilitating stroke before the Taliban ever took over Afghanistan, which would have prevented him engaging in any hostilities, without regard to his political preference. But he was one of the many guys in Guantanamo who said they welcomed the US intervention to remove the Taliban. His son was one of the half dozen or so detainees who were picked up because they were guarding armories who acknowledged guarding armories, but on an official, salaried basis, under the rubric of the Afghan Ministry of Defense. He and his son requested Rahim Wardak's testimony to clear them of this charge. Their Tribunal documents describe Wardak as a "Defense Ministry official" -- and said that he couldn't be located. Wardak was then, in fact, the Deputy Minister of Defense. He is currently the Minister of Defense. Maybe his testimony wouldn't have cleared Khan and his son, but the DoD didn't make more than a token effort to try to apply any sanity tests to the allegations against these men. This is not only morally reprehensible, keeping innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo, but it makes us all less safe. The Guantanamo detainment camps cost $100 million per year. The Guantanamo detainment camps ties down two whole battalions of camp guards. These resources could be much better spent elsewhere. Wasting them there makes us all less safe.
    - Or consider the case of Abdullah Khan -- captured in the winter of 2003, he spent his first year and a half at Guantanamo denying his interrogator's accusations that he was really Khirullah Khairkhwa, the guy who read the Taliban's press releases, and briefly the GOvernor of Herat. When Khan was captured it was based on a denunciation that he was really Khairkhwa. Unbelievably no American intelligence official made the effort to test the truth of the denunciation. The real Khirullah Khairkhwa had been captured over a year earlier, and was undergoing his own interrogations in Guantanamo. Khan quickly learned this, when he arrived. He kept telling his interrogators this, and they couldn't be bothered to take a look at the camp roster.
  - Having read about half their transcripts for myself I know that the Denbeaux study's conclusions are entirely accurate. A very significant fraction of the detainees are very likely innocent men. The public needs to be able to read the allegations against the detainees for themselves.

--NuclearUmpf 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You arent even arguing these people are notable, just that you did alot of work and want it to stay, that its hard to match a number to a testimony, none of these are grounds for keeping 50+ articles that have 0 content in them. --NuclearUmpf 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I am arguing that they are all notable. The Geneva Conventions require a captor, like the USA, to use a "competent tribunal" to distinguish between its captives, and determine whether:
  - The captive is an innocent civilian, caught up in a case of mistaken identity, or forcibly evacuated from a fire zone, or reasonable equivalent. The Geneva Convention says that civilian evacues can be sent, temporarily, to refugee camps, but that they should be returned home, as soon as it is safe for them to do so.
  - The captive is a combatant, but a lawful one, who has not violated any of the laws or customs of war. Lawful combatants can be detained, until hostilities cease. But they are supposed to enjoy certain protections and privileges -- ie. POW status. A captive who is a lawful combatant, who has POW status, can't be charged with murder. Killing an enemy, when following all the laws and conventions of war, is not murder. And, if I understand the GC correctly, even killing a comrade, or an innocent civilian, is not murder, if the combatant followed lawful rules of engagement, and the death was a tragic accident.
  - The captive is a combatant, but they violated the laws or customs of war. Once the "competent tribunal" makes this determination the captive can be stripped of many of the protections of POW status. They can be tried. They can be tried for murder, if they killed an enemy soldier.
  - I believe the Geneva Conventions are quite clear. The captor is obliged to treat all captives as if they were entitled to POW status, until a competent tribunal meets, and makes the determination that the captive is not entitled to POW status.
  - The George H.W. Bush administration convened something like 1300 competent tribunals during and shortly after the first Gulf War. Those competent tribunals determined that more than 70% of those captives were innocent civilians. Those competent tribunals determined that all the remaining captives were entitled to POW status. The DoD has army regulations on how to conduct competent tribunals so that they comply with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations. AR190-8, IIRC. The Bush administration has yet to comply with its Geneva Convention obligations, and convene a single competent tribunal on any of the captives taken in Afghanistan. No, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals don't count -- for the reasons you characterized as "fluff". The Combatant Status Review Tribunals did not have the authority to determine whether captives qualified for POW status -- only whether they met the Bush administration's definition of an "enemy combatant".
  - IMO, if we believe in the rule of law, if we respect the rule of law, we comply with our Geneva Convention obligations, and allow all our captives to have the protections of the Geneva Convention POW status, until that competent tribunal determines they don't merit those protections. We extend those protections even to the captives that we suspect are "the worst of the worst". Captives whose detentions violate the Geneva Conventions, for whom we have information from authoritative, verifiable sources, merit articles.
  - Some of the articles on Guantanamo detainees have not been expanded beyond the stub status that gives the surface appearance that they are identical to some readers. There are approximately 400 articles on individual Guantanamo detainees. Approximately one hundred of these articles were based on reports from human rights groups, the captive's families, press reports, habeas corpus requests. When the DoD released the transcripts, I started going through them, and expanding the original 100 or so articles, and creating new articles, based on the transcripts. When I had spent the time necessary to enable myself to match the detainee's name to their transcript, and after I had created a couple of dozen new articles, I realized that the task was quite repetitive, and could be automated. At first, I kept all the stubs on my computer, and only added fleshed-out articles. But then I realized that it could be interpreted that I was hoarding the connection between the names and transcripts, making it almost impossible for other authors to write articles about those detainees. So I uploaded all the stubs. I am plowing through them, as fast as I can. Following the previous nomination to delete a detainee's article I went through all the articles, to measure my progress. At that time something like 145 articles hadn't been expanded beyond stub status. The week when I was responding to that nomination was a washout. As has been this week. Including Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani I swatted 15 articles, leaving about 130. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the link is now working and the article is expanded. This one is pretty much fluff even after the expansion, and could be adequately handled by a merge that preserved the detainee ID number and the link to the particular PDF with the appropriate page numbers. There is even less here than there was for that last test cases I linked above. I continue to believe that the relevant WP:BIO standard isthe one about renown or notoriety due to involvement in newsworthy events. If there is such renown/notoriety, then the articles should reference articles other than the government sources. Not seeing such sources in the article, I think that merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees and redirect is the appropriate result until they are found, at which point the article can be reverted to the current version and expanded from such sources. GRBerry 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content removal
- I added some additional content to the article yesterday.
- The person who nominated this article for deletion removed it.
- I reverted their deletion with this explanation.
- Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in why it was removed and removed again, please see talk page. Only information Geo Swan offered was that arab names are hard to illiterate and so they are the same person. I ask for a source other then him stating this as WP:RS WP:V and WP:OR are important for us to follow. I do not object if you have something other then your own words that arab names are hard to illiterate. --NuclearUmpf 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me NuclearUmpf. I think if you read my explanation more fully you will see that I linked to the wikipedia article on Arabic names. I think I said that they were hard to transliterate, and I think you will find that the wikipedia article backs up that assertion.

As for your concern that the two names may refer to two different individuals. This is a straw argument. No one is disputing this. As I pointed out on the article's talk page readers deserve to know the facts, and they can make up their own mind as to whether the two are the same individual.

Your removal of the {mergeto} tag is, IMO, highly Ill-advised.

Cheers! Geo Swan, not logging in because I only have a few moments, and I am not at home... 70.51.132.154 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR and WP:V you arent allowed to make connection simply because you feel like it. --NuclearUmpf 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am sufficiently familiar with WP:OR and WP:VER thanks. I am not "making a connection simply because I feel like it."

The two names are very similar. The likelihood of them referring to the same individual is high -- FWIW. But, let me repeat. I never stated that the two names refer to the same individual. I invited discussion as to whether the referred to the same individual -- with the {mergeto} tag. And, forgive me being so blunt, but you shouldn't keep removing that invitation to a discussion, based on your personal interpretation. You should state your opinion, on the talk page, and let other readers offer their opinion. If you refer to WP:NOT you will see a subsection entitled: "Wikipedia is not a battlefield." -- Removing the invitation to the discussion, is confrontational. It is consensus destroying, not consensus building.

As I stated on the article's talk page, without regard to whether the two similar names refer to the same individual, both names should be mentioned in this article, for the benefit of readers who assume they are the same. With both names mentioned the reader gets to make up their own mind. I know I am repeating myself, but you haven't addressed this point in your earlier comments, and I think it is a very important one.

I strongly urge you to be more collegial.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who other then you is stating these people can be mistaken, if you cannot provide someone from a WP:RS source in two days I will remove the information again. Please read WP:OR again it seems you failed to see the part about maknig your own conclusions. --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a CNN interview in Washington DC with SAIO Director Nail Al-Jubeir, that refers to a Muhammad al-Juhani -- without specifying which Muhammad al-Juhani the interview subject was talking about. Do you really need me to prove that people could conflate two individuals with similar names? -- Geo Swan 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some proof that these two individuals are being confused, not that Muhammad al-Juhani was mentioned in the news. There is no proof this person is being confused with the other person. Please provide a source of this. Just because I find a Mike Tyson in a city in New Orleans at the age of 5 doesnt mean I can add him to the Mike Tyson (boxer) article saynig they have been confused. again please provide a source or I will remove the information again in two days. --NuclearUmpf 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the Saudi official used the name Muhammad Al Juhani that was inherently confusing, if our two names do refer to two separate individuals. Both men would be alleged terrorists. Both men could be referred to as Muhammad Al Juhani. If, on the other hand, the two names referred to a single individual, then referring to him as Muhammad Al Juhani would be perfectly acceptable. So, would the Saudi government know the identity of all the Saudi Guantanamo detainees? Well, variouse Saudi detainees told their Tribunals that a delegation of Saudi officials visited them at Guantanamo, so I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you were confused doesnt mean the Saudi's were. Its like me seeing a report on Mike Tyson and being confused because the kid down the block has the same name, so I goto the Mike Tyson article and write information about the kid down the block to that article, dont say they are related as you did not, just slap a block of text in the middle of Mike Tyson (boxer)'s article about the kid down the block from me. can youprove someone was confused with a source? You seem to be the only one confused and citing confusion. --NuclearUmpf 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Mike Tyson analogy... You and I don't know how common Muhammad Al Juhani is in Saudi Arabia. I have no problem assuming that Muhammad Al Juhani is at least as common as Mike Tyson. But, all the males born in Saudi Arabia is not the namespace we are talking about. The namespace we are talking about are Saudis who are wanted by, or in the custody of, the USA, because they are suspected of being terrorists. That is only a couple of hundred individuals. Please, let's compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Agreed? Now, if the guy down the street, was not only named Mike Tyson, but was a world famous boxer, that would be a fair comparison.
I didn't say the Saudi official was confused. I said that if the two transliterations refered to two individuals, then the Saudi official confused the issue for their listeners. I thought I already explained this. When the Saudi official spoke about the suspected terrorist Muhammad Al Juhani they would have then introduced confusion as to which suspected terrorist named Muhammad Al Juhani they meant. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like this resubmitted for further comment instead of closed when the time runs out if no other people chime in. only 5 people have stated their views and think further opinions are needed. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 22:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I, on the other hand, would like to see this discussion closed, on schedule. NuclearUmpf has been mischaracterizing what I have written. Since I am going to AGF, I should start with the assumption that this is either due to inattention on his part, or lack of clarity on my part. IMO, in either case, NuclearUmpf should have made a greater effort to understand what I have written. I am doing my best to understand his concerns. I'd like him to reciprocate that effort. Civil, tactful questions would have prevented the mischaracterizations. Perhaps someone else can spell out to NuclearUmpf how mischaracterizing what someone has written gives the unfortunate appearance of bad faith, even when those comments were made in good faith, but with a lack of attention to what the other contributor actually said, or actually meant. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dont appreciate your comments, you have stated yourself that you have added information to this article about people unrelated to the article person in any fashion. People that you have not connected via a source and admittedly have no source linking them in any way. You have added information to this article that violated WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V to extend its size purposely without providing any link other then your understanding that arab names are hard to illiterate, so apparently anyone wioth Muhammed (a common arab name) and Juhani are actually being mistaken for the same person. This is obsurd in its own right as I am sure there are hundreds of arab men with the last name Juhani and what is probably the most common first name. So here is my simple question since you ask for one. Do you have a source linking these two people? --NuclearUmpf 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - NuclearUmpf, in several of my responses I stated my concern that you weren't reading my comments. In this comment above, you repeat your assertion: "noone is even arguing these people are notable". Well, in this comment, predating your comment, I started the major portion of my reply with: "For the record, I am arguing that they are all notable." Surely you can agree this gives the appearance you aren't reading other people's comments? I followed this statement with a detailed explanation. In your comment on WP:AN/I you told the administrators that I was simply reverting your changes -- neglecting to mention that I have diligently explained my actions. Would you please pause, and consider, whether telling your audience that I simply reverted your changes, without saying I make honest, civil attempts to explain myself, is a fair characterization? Please put yourself in my shoes. I am doing my best to understand your concerns. Can you really say you are trying to understand my replies? If so how come my repeated explanations that you are mischaracterizing me go ignored?
    - You keep repeating that I have acknowledged that the two transliterations represent two different individuals. And I keep telling you that you are mischaracterizing my statements. I don't think you understand that there is a difference between not asserting, in the article, that the two transliterations name a single individual, and acknowledging that the two transliterations name two different individuals. I did the former. You keep insisting on asserting on the latter, on User:Kappa, and on [[WP:AN/I. I am not going to assert, in the article, that the two transliteration name a single individual. That is, at present, unverifiable. Asserting this, in the article would violate NPOV. So, I didn't do it. Please stop mischaracterizing my restraint, to comply with NPOV, as an acknowledgement that the two individuals are unrelated.
    - Regarding your comment that it is absurd to conflate individuals based solely on their name... There are on the order of one hundred Guantanamo detainees, whose continued detention is justified, in part, because their name, or one of their "known aliases", was found on a list that American intelligence analysts found suspicious. What kind of lists? Well, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a list of 324 Arabic names on his laptop. A handful of those hundred had their name, or alias, matching one of those 324 names. But some of the other name matches are far less credible. FYI, one of the justifications for continuing to detain Faruq Ali Ahmed was, according to the National Journal: "The board told Farouq that a new piece of evidence had turned up against him, he later told his lawyers. Somebody had said, at some point in the past four years, that they had heard the name "Farouq" over a walkie-talkie during the battle of Tora Bora." Another list was simply a website that listed the known Guantanamo detainees, with the avowed attempt to put pressure on their governments to lobby for their release. If you think it is absurd, have you considered writing President Bush, and telling him so?
    - Regarding your assertion that I am violating WP:RS and WP:V, could you please explain why the Department of Defense and the FBI should not be considered verifiable, reliable sources?
    - Regarding your assertion that I am violating WP:NOR -- it seems to me that WP:NOR does not preclude me noticing the occurrence of two similar names. I don't think it precludes me from finding that article from the Saudi embassy's web-site. I am going to repeat myself. The namespace we are concerned with here is small. It is not the namespace of all Saudi males. It is the namespace of all the Saudis that the USA regards as threats to its National Security. And this is a small namespace. Namespace collision in such a small namespace is noteworthy. I don't think I have to prove this.
    - Do you wish to explain which of my comments you don't appreciate? If it is the comment that you keep mischaracterizing me, I'm sorry, but I think that is undeniable. I didn't close my mind to the possibility that I what I wrote wasn't clear. But, since I am doing my best to understand your concerns, I would continue to appreciate you to try to understand my concerns. Your final question implies something that is not verifiable -- that the two transliterations refer to two different individuals. Forgive me, but I am going to suggest that this is not a good starting point for the questions you are going to ask that show you are making an effort to understand my points. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the major political events of this century, to date. That the Bush administration has unilaterally decided to ignore certain rights granted to detainees under the Geneva convention is of major significance. Everyone detained at Guantanamo, whether legally or not, whether "innocent" or "guilty" is notable and should be included in this encyclopaedia. This discussion is long overdue for closure, although I will not do it myself. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THis is on par with arguing that everyone in the World Trade Center deserves an article because the even twas notable or everyone on the planes. Or everyone at Tienaman Square because that event was notable, how about every prisoner in Abu Ghraib, how about every prisoner in every jail outside of the US, but is ran by the US? I mean where does it stop, noone is even arguing these people are notable, just that the event was notable, this is obsurd. I hope the admin reviewing this can see that noone here has so far argued this person is notable or proven they are by showing any media reports. --NuclearUmpf 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I think every victim or survivor of the WTC attack merits an article? Sure, why not, if there is meaningful content, verifiable from an authoritative source? For what it is worth I started two articles about WTC survivors, Brian Clark and Stanley Prainmath. Regarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib -- well, I read much of the Fay Report. The Taguba Report estimated that more than 60% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners had been rounded up in error. The Fay Report went into more detail. The US practice was to cordon off an area and arrest ALL the military age males. Can I imagine circumstances where this approach would make sense, be acceptable? Yes. Provided the technique was put to use under very limited circumstances, and there was a prompt mechanism to release those who were innocent, and they were treated with dignity and respect until that determination was made. What the Fay Report documented was that over 90% of those rounded up were determined to have been rounded up in error. And, the reason they weren't released is that a high-level committee of busy senior officers, who didn't get along with one another, had to meet to agree on the releases. General Karpinski, the senior Military Police officer was on it, and General Barbara Fast, the senior intelligence officer in Iraq, and Colonel Warren, the senior JAG officer. They were busy, and they didn't get along, so the meetings that would have approved the release of the prisoners kept getting postponed, for months. That is the reason the prison population swelled. That is why Abu Ghraib, and, presumably, the other prisons, continued to be full of men whose innocence had been determined months earlier. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much now read WP:BIO and see why these articles would be out of line as well as this one. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, in the very first paragraph of my very first comments on your nomination, WP:BIO is not a wikipedia policy. It is a document that is based on other policies, WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you are just realizing that this is my view now it strongly suggests you aren't bothering to read the comments to your nomination. IMO, if you nominate an article for deletion you should feel obliged to make an effort to try to read and understand the comments of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, if you add it I will just remove it, if this is a problem then call an admin. You are asking questions that show you are not reading policy. Why can you put that you notice a similarity? This isnt your blog, this is a place for facts and reporting what others have said, you are not a reliable source. Noone is debating that another person with a much shorter and not very similar name exists, you just havent given a single source saying they are the same person. That is why you fail WP:RS not because you dont have a reliable source saying they exist, its because you dont have a reliable source saying they are the same. I know ... you arent saying they are ... then good there is no problem with me removing it. You have a problem with this then as I said call an admin. I have tried in good faith numerous times to explain this and you seem to be not reading policy or just flat out misrepresenting it. If you really think WP:RS and WP:V just has to go toward existence and not the actual thing you are attempting to state (a link) then you need to read the policy again. Its like me putting a large section on cocaine into the Mike Tyson article then showing a ATF report saying Cocaine exists and then showing a boxing magazine saying Mike Tyson exists and reporting that I am not saying he does it, just that they both exist according to WP:RS and I think it should be in the article. --NuclearUmpf 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable on his own. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Cactus.man Travb (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe WP:BIO is not relevant? --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you are here, I am sorry if you took that post personal. --NuclearUmpf 19:44, 28 September 2006 (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.

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, the alternatives, Merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees besides his date of brith all the same information is already there. Keep while the detainees are notable, articles should only be created where there is sufficient information beyond the what can be presented in the list. Gnan garra 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani[edit]

Having been a prisoner at Gitmo is strong grounds for notability, but, presumably because of the veil of secrecy, nothing is known about the person who is the subject of this article, other than (a) he is a name on a list of former Gitmo prisoners; (b) the list says he was born in 1979 in Mecca. Should articles really exist about people when nothing is known, or perhaps knowable, about them? Tempshill 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN for own seperate article, especially seeing as who most of this article is background not even about him. Could be put in a list. --Shuki 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the articles should all exist, because progressively more will become known, since given the name, date of birth, and place of birth, they will be recognized. Even now, has anyone searched Arabic-language sources? Even in English, there are "transcripts and statements from the CSRB" which might provide further information even if partially censored. The article did not correctly transcribe the date of birth, which is "2/10/1978" . DGG 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Geo Swan 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the other articles about Guantanamo captives.
- I have his release date somewhere in my notes. I can't find them right now.
- Arabic names are often transliterated in many different ways. Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani's name is very close to that of two highly notable captives.
  - Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, the individual whose article is nominated for deletion, is spelled very similarly to Jabran Said Wazar Al Qahtani, one of the ten detainees who faced charges before the Guantanamo military commissions. I confused them myself, at first. Given how loose name matching has to be for people with Arabic names this would, normally, qualify as a perfect name match.
  - Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, the individual whose article is nominated for deletion, is one of four captives who is named some variation of Muhamed Al Qahtani.
  - Muhammad Mani Ahmded Al Shal Lan Al Qahtani, usually known simply as Mohammed Al Qahtani, was the Guantanamo captive who was identified as one of the "20th hijackers". He is the one the DoD actually acknowledges torturing for two months. Another wikipedia contributor mistook Jabir Muhammed Al Qahtani for the 20th hijacker.
- IMO, the best way to prevent confusion over Jabir's identity, so he isn't mistakenly conflated with the other guys is for him to have an article of his own.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate combined list of detainees. I know that creating such a list will take time and effort, but continue to believe that it is the right action for any of the detainees for whom no sources independent of the standard prisoner lists and CSRT hearing records hae been found. GRBerry 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Greetings,
- You have made this suggestion before. I didn't take a crack at it when you made your first suggestions last fall. I wanted to make sure none of the articles were what my earlier critics called stubs. But, when I finished, I spent almost all my spare time during late December, January and February adapting one of the files in my rough notes as an experiment to try your suggestion. I think I have told you this a couple of times now. I think I told you have how large and unmanageable this file grew -- about 420 kilobytes at this point. I didn't spell this out before, but that experiment consumed well over one hundred hours.
- I left a note on Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees where I asked people for their opinion about a rewrite of that article. That was five weeks ago, only one reply so far.
- As I have said before, I continue to have concerns over the workability of a union list I continue to have concerns that it could prove to be too large to be useful because of how long it would take to load, and too large for an interested party to find what they want, once it loads.
- If you are aware of an answer to the technical problems I anticipate, let me then ask you if you have the time and energy to lay them out? I think Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees would be the appropriate place for that discussion.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AKRadecki 22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no media coverage at all, therefore does not meet notability AKRadecki 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with akradecki. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strictly speaking, this is not a relisting but a continuation of an unclosed discussion started on 21 May that appears not to have been formally closed. To whoever may close this, I think another couple of days is appropriate. No opinion on the article at present, just heading off to read it properly. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual is not notable. How can he be if nothing is known about him? Nick mallory 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Guantánamo Bay detainees until such time as we have enough information to write a proper article on the individual. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He's already listed as "Al Qahtani, Jaber Hasan". AKRadecki 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep After having given this much additional thought, I remain of the opinion that all of these individuals are notable because of the nature, scale and likely historical significance of the political event that they are embroiled in. Little is known about them for the very obvious reason that information is actively witheld and suppressed by the detaining authority. The norms of the various guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:BIO etc. are rather difficult to employ in these circumstances. I also find Geo Swan's argument above against merging to the list convincing. Therefore, keep. (Please note, any response to this opinion will likely be unanswered as I am running an ancient gas-powered PC temporarily (main PC has fried motherboard - boo)). --Cactus.man ✍ 08:30, 2 June 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.

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 The result was No consensus Malla nox 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Said Bin Said Zaid[edit]

The onyl biographical information on Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is found in the header. The rest of the article is about procedures and other information about Guantanamo Bay detention camps. The article does not state the notability or importance of the subject other than the fact they are being held at Guantanamo Bay. --Ozgod 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for soapboxing. Notability not established within article. Eddie.willers 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which passages of this article you think are soapboxing. -- Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From 'Walid Said Bin Said Zaid' to 'Afghan people' - the entire article reads as something written by a POV Soapboxer. Eddie.willers 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offense, but this is not a serious answer... remainder of discussion moved to User:Geo Swan#Walid Said Bin Said Zaid at Eddie's suggestion... Geo Swan 11:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. As a result of the discussion alluded to above, I retract my 'Delete' and withdraw from this AFD debate. Lack of free time precludes my ability to offer a reasoned or honed response to Geo Swan points. Eddie.willers 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I would kind of like there to be articles for each of detainees, but I'm not sure it's objectively a good idea. All of these articles should be combined into one long one. The bios are about the right length. Then redirects created for each of the names to the centralized article. - Richfife 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This suggestion has been made before. My personal opinion is that a union list should only be a supplement to the existing articles, not a replacement. Nevertheless, I adapted a list in my rough work space, to bring it close to the skeleton of a union list. It is over 420K long. Long enough to make it problematic to render. And problematic for anyone unfamiliar with it to find what they might be looking for. Here it is.
Delete simply being a prisoner does not make one notable. Almost nothing about the subject himself in this article. Resolute 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive essay, but not relevant, imo. If anything, it argues to me that you are on a POV based crusade. When the only thing that can be said about the subject of an article is "He is a prisoner, and he might have been born on x date." the individual is not notable, regardless of your opinion of the circumstances of his imprisonment. Resolute 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) -- Did you spend enough time looking at the article to see that it quotes the allegations against him prepared for the Summary of Evidence memo that was presented to his Administrative Review Board. Walid Said Bin Said Zaid#Administrative Review Board?

In your other recent comment here you asked for "multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources". Are you disputing that an official DoD memo asserting factors for and against his continuing detention is a reliable source"?

Perhaps you are asserting that the official DoD memo, which states he attended an al Qaeda training camp, and that his name was found on a list of al Qaeda members, is a "trivial" document?

Regarding your implied accusation that I am POV pushing. I urge you to consider the possibility that your decision that this document is "trivial" is a reflection of your hidden systemic bias. In other words, have you considered the possibility that your efforts to suppress coverage of this material is reflection of a biased POV on your part.

Above, you wrote: "...When the only thing that can be said about the subject of an article is "He is a prisoner, and he might have been born on x date." the individual is not notable, regardless of your opinion of the circumstances of his imprisonment." I think this passage illustrates your POV. There is a specturm of opinions about the circumstances of the imprisonment at Guantanamo. It would be a breach of WP:NPOV, and other policies, if the Said Zaid article said, "He is a human rights victim! The USA is violating the Geneva Convention! George Bush is a War Criminal!" That opinion would lie near one end of the spectrum. And the position you have taken, that this material on Said Zaid should be suppressed, lies at the other end of the spectrum. The POV I wrote from when I worked on this article is, I strongly believe, a neutral point of view, right in the middle, between your extreme view, and the extreme view of someone prepared to call George Bush a war criminal.

Yes, I have a personal POV. We all do. Everyone participating in this discussion has one. Participating in the wikipedia doesn't require us get a lobotomy, so we don't have a POV. It merely requires we exercise discipline to make sure we don't inject our POV into the articles we work on. I make a big effort to make sure I don't. I don't expect to success 100% of the time. That is why I follow up on ever suggestion that my efforts have lapsed. But I believe I largely succeed because I hardly ever get serious, specific challenges.

Can you point to a specific passage that you feel lapsed from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:VER? If not, sorry, but I don't consider complaints that can't cite specific passages to be serious. Geo Swan 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused it of failing NOR or VER, so that request is irrelevent. The POV pushing is highlighted by your arguments. Ie: that I apparently want to "suppress" this material because I disagree with you. It isn't a matter of suppression, it is a matter of notability. The PDFs that you linked are out there, but that does not mean they have to be on Wikipedia. My vote has no bearing on my personal opinion - or lack thereof - of Guantanamo detainees. I also find your need to write articles about random, non-notable prisoners to be POV itself, as your argument to keep is rooted in WP:ILIKEIT rather than in policy. Just because you feel it is important that articles for every prisoner exists does not mean articles for every prisoner should exist. These people are, for the most part, not notable, yet you attempt to invent notability out of thin air.

The DoD memo I would consider one reliable source, though the triviality of Zaid's mention is debatable. Regardless, you simply cut and pasted the information. There has been no critical commentary about this individual - which you yourself could not provide without violating WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of public domain material. The list of prisoners is a trivial link with respect to Zaid, as he obviously is not the focus of it, but rather is nothing more than a one line mention. Triviality is determined not only by the origin of the link itself, but by how much is written about the subject you are writing about.

The fact is, this individual is simply a random prisoner. He has done nothing outstanding to set himself apart from other Guantanamo prisoners. He exists, he is imprisoned, and he had a review. I fail to see how this individual is notable, and accusing me of systemic bias hardly serves to establish his notability. Resolute 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If people murdered by terrorists are deemed by Wikipedia to be non notable, and they almost always are, I see no justification for this article. As has been pointed out there's virtually no information about him in the article either. Nick mallory 06:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry,
  - but, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} participants are discouraged from citing existing articles that they think share an aspect of the article under debate, to argue that an article should be kept.
  - Similarly, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} participants are discouraged from citing articles that have been deleted, that they think share an aspect with the article under debate, to argue that the article in question should also be deleted.
  - Rather, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} participants are strongly encouraged to judge each article nominated for deletion solely on its merits, and how fully it complies with policy. — Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the advice Geo Swan. I still find your tireless advocacy for the terrorist suspects at Gitmo entirely unpersuasive however. As you're so keen to lecture me on Wikipedia procedure could you answer where the significance or notability of this particular terrorist suspect is asserted in the article? Nick mallory 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying this to be sarcastic. I honestly want to know. Are you really saying that if I had inserted the phrase "...is notable because..." somewhere in the article you would not have agreed that it should be deleted? Okay, so what if I had said "he is notable because he is being held under conditions that many legal scholars and human rights workers have called a violation of the Geneva Conventions?"
I dispute that I am a tireless advocate for the captives at Guantanamo. I make a big effort to for my contributions to article space to fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER. Did you mean to tell me you think some of my contributions to article space have lapsed into advocacy?
If you are aware of any articles about victims of terrorism, or survivors of terrorism, that are currently in {{afd}} I'd be happy to go read them. If you know of a stub sorting for them I would be interested in putting it on my watchlist. If you want to initiate an undeletion, let me know and I will be sure to go and take a look. FWIW I started several articles about survivors or victims of terrorism. I started Kathleen Kenna, Brian Clark and Stanley Prainmath, Layne Morris, Christopher Speer and articles about half a dozen Afghanistanis, and South Asians who were assassinated by terrorists..
Cheers -- Geo Swan 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the article doesn't even mention him, but rather describes his general situation. Delete as non-notable prisoner. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but don't you think the allegations against him are "about" him?
- You couldn't know this, but the wikipedia is the only freely available resource on the internet where an interested reader can look up the transcripts, or summary of evidence memos.

The only real thing that mentions this prisoner is the opening sentence so how does he deserve an ENTIRE article?. In theory, you can just merge his name along with other names from the prison. As per Arkyan, this is more of the broad issue of the detainment rather than an individual person----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this comment from Dysepsion disturbsed me. I wrote them, about it. and we had the following exchange: [10], [11]. -- Geo Swan 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer — I started this article.
- No offense — No offense, but there have been close to two dozen attempts to delete articles that are related to Guantanamo. And most of those nominations, and many of the opinions expressed, are based on simple misconceptions. One of those misconceptions is repeated here — namely that Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is just a prisoner, like millions of other prisoners. Here is an answer I gave three weeks ago on my talk page. If you think Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is just a prisoner, like a million other prisoners, with nothing exceptional about his case, please read: Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs
- Finding Said Zaid's allegation memo? — Is it possible to find all of Said Zaid's transcripts and memos, without using the wikipedia article to find the link to the right page numbers, in the right pdfs? Sure. But it would take about an afternoon:
- (removed a list of the steps to find Said Zaid's allegation memo, if this article was removed...)
- Couldn't those page number and file number references be put into one huge union list? Well, as I said, I took a crack at making a union list. I spent over 100 hours at it. It is something like 2/3 finished. Or maybe far less than half finished, given it will require proof reading, and editing for style and appearance, before it can be put into article space. On April 18th I asked for help on Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees#total rewrite?. No one has volunteered yet.
- Cheers! — Geo Swan 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What on earth has the lengthy comment posted above got to do with the merits of this article's inclusion or otherwise on Wikipedia? As someone who earlier lectured at length on the Wikipedia guidelines for comments at AfDs I would have expected the writer to know that any supposed difficulty in finding information from another source has absolutely nothing to do with the merit, or otherwise, of that information appearing on Wikipedia. Usually notablity is asserted on Wikipedia by linking to sources directly relevant to the article, Geo Swan seems to be making the novel argument that because such sources clearly don't exist for this terrorist suspect that means he should have an article here. That's the complete opposite of the usual rationale, presumably he's appealing to IAR rather than anything else here? Nick mallory 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I truly appreciate Geo Swan's dedication to the Gitmo articles, and have had some friendly interaction on related topics. However a review of this article shows it is more about the broader issue of the detainment rather than this particular detainee, and a glance at the several dozen other detainee articles shows the bulk of these articles are identical. I would support retaining these articles as redirects to a central article about the Guantanamo detainees or perhaps a tabular list of detainees, but it's a little late to include several dozen other articles into this AfD. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from being a soapbox, article devotes much space to specifying the allegations against him, based on the Pentagon's own contentions. I agree that not every prisoner in the world is notable but the attention paid to Guantanamo detainees is an order of magnitude beyond what most prisoners get. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am certain, then, that you can provide multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources that focus directly on this individual, as opposed to Guantanamo Bay detainees as a whole? The focus on the prisoners as a whole is already well covered at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Resolute 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JamesMLane summarised it pretty well. I've said it before, reconsidered at length, and continue to maintain that all of these individuals are notable because of the nature, scale and likely historical significance of the political event that they are embroiled in. Little is known about them for the very obvious reason that information is actively witheld and suppressed by the detaining authority. WP:BIO is only a guideline, not policy, for a very good reason. The article is well constructed and fully compliant with the core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I see no NPOV issues in the article - it summarises who the prisoner is, what's he's accused of, and provides updates on his status in the detention camp. Why is he any less notable than Eldad Regev or any other person "notable chiefly for being captured"? He is also "unique" and "noteworthy" as a Guantanamo prisoner who actually supports the US war in Afghanistan and has said he has been treated fairly throughout his detainment. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not Notable --Bill.matthews 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. The referenced document (Factors for and against the continued detention) incudes about 50 similar cases, which almost immediatelly renders each one as not notable, while the whole set is notable but already covered here and at wikibooks. - Nabla 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As Cactus Man said above, WP:BIO is a guideline. This article is important, NPOV/neutral, particularly as it is sourced primarily using DOD information. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to cover topics like this in as great a depth as possible. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:11, 9 June 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.

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. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-hearing hearings[edit]

The report is non notable in and of itself, as it only garners 863 hits on Google, many of which are Wiki mirrors and therefore does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Information in the article also exist nearly verbatim in several other articles. Suggest a Merge with the Mark P. Denbeaux article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is an important article, widely cited. Geo Swan 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Several of the nominator's crticisms are issues that properly belong on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}.
- Comment — This is, IMO, a malformed nomination, and, as such, it should be withdrawn.
- Comment — The last time I looked this article fully complied with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. I think it is a mistake to argue that material that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER should be removed because it does not comply with some individuals perception of what is and isn't notable. Notability, in my experience, is a highly subjective and unreliable yardstick.

widely cited? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a broader article, most of this is just a restatement of context and the report's findings, which belong in an article about what the report studied, rather than just the report itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as this seems to essentially be a POV fork of Combat Status Review Tribunals or a related article. I am unconvinced that this report -- and the article is about the report, not any hearings -- is itself notable. It is a critique of the process that should properly be treated as a source for an article, not as a notable topic in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this article is a POV-fork. What POV are you asserting is being forked here? Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at Combatant Status Review Tribunal recently? It is already quite long. Long enough that it is time to consider splitting it, not merging in further, related articles. Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The Denbeauxs are charlatans but they're notable in the "anti-war" camp. It doesn't belong in the CSRT article because their reports require too much clarification that would clutter up that article. I could see there being one big Denbeaux studies article but I think it's better to have several short ones. -- Randy2063 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have great trouble accepting this as a neutral nomination. It is sourced, absolutely notable (the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!) and as such there is no reason to delete. However, certain editors consider any article that is vaguely critical of the Bush administration by defrinition POV. Maybe nominator has other thoughts than simply keeping up the encyclopeadic nature of WP.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Well, a quick recap of the notability of the No Hearings Hearings, and the sources used to validate this statement.

NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.

FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.

That leaves us with two sources directly mentioning, that coupled with the scarcity of hits on Google, and the fact that this report is not found in Google Scholarly Article search, means that this aint notable enough for its own article, and should be merged elsewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your concerns about the footnotes is one you should have raised on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}. You are misusing the {{afd}} fora.
A note to other readers, the two footnotes that Mr or Ms Tortuous Devastating Cudgel is objecting to are footnotes to the caption of the image of the trailer where the Tribunals were held.
I dispute that adding a picture of the trailer where the hearings were held violates WP:SYN or WP:NOR. Agreed? If so, then this objection really boils down to a concern over that caption.
- I didn't add the picture, or caption, to this particular article. But I added this picture, with a different caption, to another article, prior to the publication of the study. I was challenged to cite references that backed up that the captive spent the hearing bound hand and foot. I found some. I suspect that someone cut and pasted the image and caption I used, edited the caption, but kept the references.
- I am going to repeat that your objection to this article, based on these two references, seems to me to be a serious misuse of wikipolicies. And I strongly recommend you review them.
- FWIW, the study itself documents that shackling, hand and foot:
  "Each CSRT took place in a small room. Armed guards brought the detainee, shackled hand and foot, to the room, seated him in a chair against the wall and chained his shackled legs to the floor."
Cheers Geo Swan 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we have had no response to the fact WaPo and Village Voice documented the report. One would think it is difficult to be not notable when discussed in main stream publications.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a response to that. It wasn't an actual WaPo reporter, and the Village Voice columnist can't be taken seriously. There are only a few liberal commentators parroting spin. They clearly bought the misleading "92%" number as well as the bogus bounty hunters line without giving it a close look. There is no serious nonpartisan analysis for these reports.

-- Randy2063 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Delete on the basis of the evidence so far. There is no question whatsoever that the hearings are notable. This article, however, is about the book. Let's look at the refs: Some are about the topic, some are written by the same group, but it looks the the 3rd and 5th are mainly about the book. The NYT article is not. The second VV one mentions the book down at the bottom. where are some books reviews? The tendency to get as many articles as possible for one very notable topic does not make sense. DGG 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many articles are there? What topic do you mean?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no provisions in Wikpedia's notability guidelines that require a certain number of G-hits. What it does say is "The number [of secondary sources] needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." MoodyGroove 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Response Maybe the logic behind this nomination may be more apparent when you realise nominator has gone to several articles I edit (why has he forgotten this article?) and is massively deleting adequately sourced information there also. For some reason it always results in removing uncomfortable, yet sourced, information about the Bush administration. Coincidence is really an interesting topic.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book itself is POV, so there will always be some difficulty in keeping the article about it NPOV, but that's a matter of how the article is written, not whether it should exist. JamesMLane t c 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other WP:RS that mentioned or make available this NN report: US Senate Commitee on Armed Services(report!!), HRW, CCR. To insist on lack of notability is proof of inadequate knowledge of who cites it, insufficient grasp of policy or more sinister motives.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per all arguments above, and by subject matter of book. I hardly see how it isn't notable G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 23:26, 4 June 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.

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 No concensus reached, default to Keep. -- Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am not an admin, and am the originator of the AfD. -- Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Yadel[edit]

~~Try as I might, I can't see any way this individual prisoner at Gitmo can pass WP:BIO. All news articles I can find are, at best, trivial coverage and none of the other notability criterion are met.~~ Coren 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to neutral after article edits, see below. Coren 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, score one for the highly specific deletion sorting categories. Not every prisoner in Gitmo is notable. I hit a few random articles from the relevant category, and they were much better developed than this one. I think the word nontrivial in WP:N should be emphasized, especially with WP:BLP lurking in the background. YechielMan 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you overlooked that the nominator did not comply with WP:CFD and WP:CSD, placing his or her orginal {{db}} less than half an hour after the first draft was placed. Why don't you reserve your judgement, and wait for the article to be more complete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs).
Keep -- Geo Swan 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer -- I started this article.
- Guantanamo captives merit coverage on the wikipedia because they are at the focus of important events.
  - Close to twenty of the 400 plus articles on Guantanamo captives have been nominated for deletion. The same arguments come up again and again. I find that many of those who argue for deletion base that judgement on serious misconceptions -- like that the Guantanamo captives are just prisoners, like the millions of convicts in US penitentiaries, If you share this idea, I encourage you to read: Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs
- Brahim Yadel is particularly notable, as he is suspected of organizing jihadist training camps in France.

Keep In my opinion, all of the Guantanamo Bay captives are notable because of the nature, scale and historical significance of the political event that they are embroiled in. The nomination referes to "trivial coverage". Little is known about them for the very obvious reason that information is actively witheld and suppressed by the detaining authority. WP:BIO is only a guideline, not policy, for a very good reason: each case needs to judged on its merits. Nevertheless, contrary to the claim in the nomination, the subject meets the very first standard for determining notability of people: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article may need work and expansion, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. The AfD template was placed a mere two hours after the article was first created for goodness sake. It may be a stub at present, but it is well sourced and fully compliant with our core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that justifies an article on Gitmo, and on the events going on there. That probably might justify an article giving a short blurb on each non-notable prisonner (not a list, please!). But an article about every single prisoner we can get a name for? Coren 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I explained above. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my rough notes I have a list I use that gives a short blurb on each captive -- [[12]]. I encourage you to go take a look at it. It is about 430K long. It is incomplete. I largely stopped working on it, when it was around two thirds finished, because it became just too large to edit. It may also be too large to be useful to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. So, this article you propose, that gives a short blurb on each "non-notable" captive, please tell us what you think it would look like. How do you think it would differ from the list in my rough notes?
You realize that this union list you propose would require at least several hundred hours of work? Will you commit yourself to a share of that work?
During earlier {{afd}} fora when some wikipedians made essentially the same suggestion you just did, that the article in question be merged to a big omnibus article, other wikipedians said they would agree, once the big omnibus article was in place.
I can't help noticing that you haven't addressed my earlier point, that Brahim Yadel is suspected of organizing jihadist training camps. Perhaps you should explain how you think we should draw the line between the captives you will acknowledge are notable, and those you would classify as non-notable? Perhaps you could explain why the allegation that an EU citizen organized jihaidst training, in an EU country, fails to make that individual "notable"?
Cheers! Geo Swan 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do realize that would be work. Although, if it got to 430K long then some pruning would need to be done; regardless of how notable their treatment is/was, not every detainee would even be slightly notable enough for even a blurb.

I don't agree with the need or usefulness for such a list/article in the first place (although I wouldn't contest it collectively meeting WP:NN), but if that work is the only thing that stops cluttering the Wiki with hundreds of non-notable articles no one will ever search for by name, then I'm willing to give a hand with it. Coren 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

430K -- How much of a review do you think a fair minded person would need to do to reach the conclusion that "pruning would need to be done"? Can I ask how much time you spent reviewing those 430K before you reached your conlcusion? Did you reach this conclusion merely based on the size, without reviewing it at all?
Let's do the math. There are 500 or so captives for whom we have authoritative, verifiable references. Each reference is about 200 bytes long, what with the URL, title, date, publication, author. That is 100K right there. Some captives have multiple authoritative, verifiable references. Over half that 430K is references. We could cut the size in half, if we abandoned the references. But I don't think that is a good solution.
You said you weren't being personal. But, in fact you are being personal. You can't imagine that these individual articles could ever be useful? That is you being personal, in that you are relying on your personal judgement and imagination.
- I know that these articles are useful, are, in fact, being used. The Jurist is a good site I came across as I started writing articles about the captives. I found it to be a very pleasant surprise when they started referencing the wikipedia's articles that I was a big contributor. Here is a recent instance: US military investigating apparent suicide of Guantanamo detainee.
- About a month ago I wrote to one of the Guantanamo captive's lawyers. He was a former police officer, who became a public defender after twenty years as a police officer. The DoD threw up incredible roadblocks to him meeting his clients. He couldn't meet with them, phone them, or write them. So he decided to travel to Afghanistan, and seek out their friends, relatives and acquaintances, to see whether their accounts would confirm or dispute the DoD's detemination that they were enemy combatants. That was extremely courageous of him. I wrote him, and told him so. I also asked for his help in updating the articles about his clients. He wrote me a very nice reply telling me that he regularly counted on looking up his clients on the wikipedia, anytime he was away from the office, and needed to consult their Tribunal transcripts.
So, that your imagination fails to see how the articles could be useful does not, IMO really counter the demonstrable fact that these article are already proving useful.
I can't help noticing you still haven't addressed my point that Brahim Yadel was accused of organizing jihadist training camps in France. I continue to hope you will explain why you do not consider this makes him "notable".
I am mystified by your characterization of these articles "cluttering up" the wikipedia. Would you reconsider characterizing any contributions that fully comply with the core wikipolicies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER as "clutter"? Do you think that the wikipedia is at risk for of running out of hard drive space?
Cheers! Geo Swan 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees or to the article about the Gitmo detention camp. Seems like a directory listing based on trivial coverage. The policies which lead to long-term imprisonment of claimed "unlawful combatants" are highly encyclopedic, but not every individual affected by the policies needs a stubby article. Edison 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far from these articles cluttering up WP, the presence of these articles demonstrates our integrity as an information source. For all those where there is enough information to write an article, one should be written.Finally there is becoming enough information to do so properly. DGG 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a prisoner in Gitmo doesn't make you notable; Gitmo is notable, the detentions are notable, being one of a slew of bit players in the drama doesn't make you notable. If the argument of the keepers were followed every coalition serviceman who served in Iraq would be notable, because Iraq is notable, the war is notable, and without soldiers (marines, etc.) we couldn't have a war, so these guys are all players in this international drama. Wrong! Carlossuarez46 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you arguing there shouldn't be an article about every GI who was KIA, for whom there are authoritative, verifiable sources, which supply something meaningful to say?
- We have articles about Pat Tillman, and Lori Piestewa, because there are authoritative, verifiable sources we can reference, that have something interesting to say about them. If there aren't articles about the other casualties of these wars wouldn't that be because:
  1. There are no authoritative, verifiable sources.
  2. There are authoritative, verifiable sources, but all they say is, thing like: lived a good life, died bravely, will be missed. There is no controversy around the circumstances of their death, as there is for Tillman and Leger.
  3. No wikipedian has gotten around to compiling the sources for the casualty yet.
- Like Tillman and Piestewa, there are authoritative, verifiable source that support building articles that cover the unique controversies that surround their cases. The Guantanamo captives aren't notable merely because Guantanamo is notable. The Guantanamo captives who have had the allegations against them each have a unique set of allegations.
  - Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have characterized the Guantanamo captives as "the worst of the worst"; they have claimed they all "were captured on the battlefield". Do the allegations against the captives support the "captured on the battlefield" claim? WP:NPOV prohibits any of us stating an opinion on this in article space, but, if you go through all the allegations: Summary of Evidence (CSRT) for a couple of dozen captives. I think it is possible for the wikipedia to contain articles that fully comply with WP:NOR, WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I believe the existing articles do comply with those three core policies.
  - It is clear to me that a significant faction of the public accepts some or all of the DoD and Bush administrations account that the Guantanamo captives were "the worst of the worst", that they were "terrorists". But do the documents the DoD has released just don't support that interpretation?
- No offense, but I think your comment actually supports the importance of these articles, because, excuse me, your comment suggests you are laboring under misconceptions about the captives, that, while you accept that the conditions of their detention may be,in general, questionable, and that the "extended interrogation techniques" some of the captives were subjected to, were questionable, it hasn't occurred to you to ask whether the allegations against the captives were credibile, and, if they were credible, whether they supported those key claims of the Bush administration, "committed terrorists", "worst of the worst", "captured on the battlefield". No offense, but, if my guess is correct, and your "delete" is based on misconceptions, if you think you are sufficiently informed, but you aren't really informed, that reinforces the necessity for these articles.
- Some of the captives not only weren't considered "enemy combatants" because they were "captured on the battlefield", weren't accused of engaging in hostilities post 9-11; weren't accused of engaging in hostilities during the lead-up to 9-11, but were accused of fighting Afghanistan's Soviet invaders during the 1980s. No. I am not making this up.
- Leaving aside the other captives, as I have pointed out before, Brahim Yadel is accused of orgainzing jihadist training camps in Europe. Why don'es this make him as notable as, let's say, a 9-11 hijacker?
- To return to your comment about articles about casualties of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I support creating one for every casualty for whom there are authoritative, verifiable sources, that support WP:NPOV coverage of something interesting. I'll help with this.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Guantanamo is notable, as are the pretexts for its existence (WoT). Simply being a prisoner there is not notable. Simply being accused of a crime, even terrorism, is not notable. The man is innocent unless or until proven guilty, regardless of what a government may believe or assert. List the man on the Guantanamo page or on a Guantanamo list page with brief details. Hu 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trial postponed -- his trial was postponed to allow an investigation of official lies by the Government. Noteworthy? Cheers Geo Swan 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, few of the prisoners are notable of their own doing, but this one has been the cause of political tension between to UN SC members. -- Steve Hart 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I'm still rather ambivalent on the suitability of the article, but enough meat has been edited into it that it no longer clearly fails to meet WP:BIO. Coren 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. If the United states government feels that he is 1 of 400 persons in the entire world that should be held indefinately and deny them any rights under US or International law, well I think that makes them notable. Callelinea 20:27, 27 June 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.

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. John254 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Preston (military lawyer)[edit]

Non-notable Air Force officer. Corvus cornix 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fairly notable within the context of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Needs citations, but plenty are available. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, military lawyer involved in some of the most significant (for good or ill) military proceedings in a generation, and externally notable for refusal to participate. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable lawyer: there seem to be plenty of reliable sources available. Jakew 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If notability means anything, then this guy is, IMO, a highly notable whistleblower. Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe highly might be overstating it a bit, but I'd class him as being past-the-post by a hair's breadth, as it were. After all, I understand you've made articles for all the detainees whose names have been made public, after all? I would argue that any of those people who were not shown to have major terrorist ties would be less notable than Mr Preston here. --Agamemnon2 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- any chance the nominator could return here and offer a fuller explanation for the nomination? Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. He's non-notable. Corvus cornix 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to ask you, a second time, to give a fuller, more meaningful, explanation. Geo Swan 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing in the article which says what makes him notable. He's an Air Force JAG, doing his job. Lots of people do their jobs. Corvus cornix 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The C-i-C also does his job, or at least what he and his advisors think is his job. Personally, I'd like a rule to let a bot eliminate any afd comment that contains the phrase "just another" or "just does" :) DGG (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Awesome example of assuming good faith. Corvus cornix 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Alternatively, you could think of it as DGG voicing his or her opinion about how to automate Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your original nomination, and your initial comment, both flouted the recommendations in WP:ATA. And while WP:ATA is just an essay, not a policy, please allow me to ask you to consider, whether you think nominating articles for deletion, without making an attempt to offer a reasoned argument, shows good faith to those wikipedians who expect the discussions in {{afd}} to be based on reasoned arguments?
        
        Cheers! Geo Swan 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Failure to indicate a subject's notability is, technically, a CSD candidate, plus the subject of the article HIMSELF blanked the page. I brought it to AfD instead of flagging it for speedy deletion because I was attempting to assume good faith and to get further eyes to look it over. Attacking a nominator is no way to discuss the issue at hand. Stick to the article and its subject, don't make attacks on the nominator. Corvus cornix 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am going to respond to your points in turn, numbering them for clarity.
        You are correct, policy does state that every article should contain an explicit claim of notability, and that if it is absent the article is eligible for speedy deletion. Practically no articles contain this explicit claim.
        
        Someone who might be the real Robert Preston, military lawyer, blanked the page. If the page blanker really is Robert Presont they have my sympathy if they don't wish to have an article about themselves. But, if I understand policy correctly, this is not a valid argument for nomination for deletion, so long as the article itself fully complies with policy.
        
        I am very glad to read that it iss your intent to show good faith.
        
        I am very sorry to read that you interpreted my comment as an attack. That was not my intent. Let me know, specifically, what aspect of my comment you felt was an attack. I think it is important to acknowledge when we make mistakes. But I will be hard to convince if you consider requests for reasoned arguments an attack. It is important, IMO, that participants in the deletion fora give real thought to their comments, and can offer reasoned arguments -- particularly the original nominators.
        
        As for the proper "way to discuss the issue at hand"... I made not one, not two, but three, very civil requests before you summoned up the energy to offer any kind of substantive explanation at all. Let me phrase this in the mildest way I can. How much energy should the other participants in an {{afd}} have to make to get the nominator to offer reasoned arguments?
        
        Is the lack of an explicit claim of notability your current justification for deletion?
        "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
        
        I am glad responding to you made me go and look up the exact wording. A lot of my contributions are to controversial topics. I bend over backwards to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER. My contributions hardly ever get serious challenges over their neutrality. This last year or so my contributions have been getting an increasing number of challenges over the notability of the topic. As with your nomination challengers assert that the topic itself it not notable, as if the NN assertion were obvious, and did not require any actual explanation.
        
        I grew increasingly frustrated with the assertions of A7, and concluded that A7 may be useful for vanity articles, or patent nonsense, but were inappropriate for controversial topics. For controversial topics the judgement call as to whether a controversial topic is notable is too subjective, too vulnerable to the personal bias of the person making the judgment call. I was unaware, until I re-read the policy, in order to respond to you, that the policy explicitly states A7 should not be used when the subject is controversial.
        
        Whistleblowers whose leaked memos receive worldwide coverage, and trigger important policy changes are controversial. A7 doesn't apply.
        
        Cheers! Geo Swan 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        <move back to the left> please allow me to ask you to consider, whether you think nominating articles for deletion, without making an attempt to offer a reasoned argument, shows good faith to those wikipedians who expect the discussions in {{afd}} to be based on reasoned arguments? reads like a personal attack, to me. Corvus cornix 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll repeat, it was not my intention to trigger the feeling you were being attacked.
        
        I am moving my reply to your concern over my tact to my talk page. Geo Swan 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I too have a couple of problems with the "just doing his job" interpretation.
        Was his boss, the guy who promised that the commission members would be handpicked so they would be sure to convict, and who promised that all the exculpatory evidence would be classified so the defense team couldn't learn of it, just "doing his job?"
        
        Three of the officers wrote letters of complaint, and a bunch of their colleagues didn't. Were the colleagues who didn't write letters of complaint just "doing their job"?
      - I think you are totally incorrect and that what the three whistleblowers did was exceptional.
      - The Guantanamo military commissions run have undergone massive revisions twice, not once. The change in the military commissions pre-Military Commissions Act and post-Military Commissions Act is less extreme than the revisions that occurred shortly following the drafting of the letters of complaint. Did the letters trigger most of those changes? I don't know. You don't know. And even if we thought we did know WP:NPOV and WP:NOR would prevent us adding our conclusion to the article. But, IMO, the wikipedia's readers deserve coverage of material that would be helpful to them in their own speculations. Geo Swan 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and delete - there really doesn't seem to be any more to him than the leaked email - a footnote in the proceedings and not, in my opinion, worthy of an article of his own. Bigdaddy1981 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at Guantanamo Bay detention camp recently? That article is already too long, unfocussed, and attempting to cover too many sub-topics. I don't think introducing another sub-topic s good idea.
- FWIW I don't think merging with Guantanamo military commissions is a good idea either. That article too is in need of being spun off into smaller articles.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes its a mess, but I don't see this as a stand alone article; there is such little detail and I don't see how more can be added. Bigdaddy1981 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure that there is much more to this (and, incidentally the John Carr articles) that isnt already stated (brefly) in the Guantanamo military commission article - unless an editor proposes to create an article on the requests for transfer for all the lawyers I think deleting this is the best bet. Bigdaddy1981 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- One of my frustrations with the wikipedia is that there are wikipedians with vastly different underlying design philosophies for the wikipedia's future growth, but there is no meaningful debate. Instead of discussing the underlying design philosophies, people vote for the deletion of articles that don't fit in with their person vision of the wikipedia.

In my opinion there are both very strong technical and esthetic reasons to prefer buidling the wikipedia from small focussed articles, as much as possible. I am willing to explain why, in detail, here, or on one of our talk pages.
I would love to read your reasoning as to why this article is too small.
I would love to read why you like big omnibus articles.
Cheers! Geo Swan 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable. 70.21.254.188 18:58, 22 August 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.

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. There are definite potential uses for sources from this article in other articles, but the arguments to delete here, praticularly with regards to the various WP:BLP issues and the fact this is sourced off one DOD list, are very strong. Most (not all) of the "keeps" seem based on the list being notable, but fail to address many of the concerns raised by those arguing "delete". Neil ☎ 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda[edit]

This article is about a list ~~made up~~ compiled not by the Defense Department but by a group of ~~law professors~~ legal scholars. The article doesn't cite any secondary sources that mention the list or tell why it is important. Most of the article ~~is made up~~ consists of repeating the names of groups mentioned on the list. Steve Dufour 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedia contributor, calling on the authority of {{blp}} has commented out 80% of this article.
I strongly dispute their reasoning. And I encourge those who wish to view this article to view this version. Geo Swan 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC) List now restored to the article.[reply]

Note There is an edit war deleting and undeleting the list and the sources [13] [14] [15]--victor falk 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator's justification is factually incorrect. A team of legal scholars read through the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the Guantanamo captives' Combatant Status Review Tribunals. They found that the allegations used to justify the captives' continued detention included alleged associations with dozens of organizations that are not on either the State Department's list of organizations proscribed due to suspected ties to terrorism, or on the Department of Homeland Security's list. The team of legal scholars did not make up this list, as nominator contends. They merely gathered the organizations listed in the allegations against the captives. Geo Swan 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like making up a list to me.(I do stand corrected on the point that the list makers were "legal scholars", not "law professors" as I said. )Steve Dufour 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus, it's all primary sources and functionally a hit piece/attack article. • Lawrence Cohen 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we all make an effort to be civil here?
I'd like to remind everyone that a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think calling the compiling of a list, based on a methodical analysis "making up a list" is highly misleading. I believe the phrase "making up a list" implies it is being made up out of thin air, not based on any research at all. Geo Swan 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable info. that should not be lost even if it's moved. JJL 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The list should be used as a primary source for other articles. It does not seem to be notable enough for its own article however. Besides that, how is anyone going to find it under its present title? Steve Dufour 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be careful about how I say this. Prior to initiating this {{|tl|afd}} our nominator discussed this article over on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Where he called the captives "bad guys". I am very concerned this nomination is another instance of a phenomenon I have discovered before.
I am concerned that the nominator has accepted the DoD's allegations at face value. There is an ongoing controversy over the credibility of the allegations. There is an ongoing controversy over how many of the captives actually merit the descriptions "worst of the worst", "captured on the battlefield", "very bad men", "terrorist". I have encountered other correspondents who discount the notability of the captives' testimony, of their denials of the allegations against them, of the comments of legal scholars who criticize the allegations, and criticize the Tribunal implementation, because they accept the allegations at face value, without applying any skepticism whatsoever.
It seems to me that our nominator doesn't recognize these controversies. It seems to me that the effect, if this nomination succeeds, would be to strip our readers of the information they need if they are to reach an informed decision as to the credibility of these allegations. I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing.
In my experience those who take the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) assertions about the captives at face value find almost nothing about them to be "notable". They discount everything that casts doubt on the JTF-GTMO allegations. Therefore they find nothing that casts doubt on the allegations worthy of coverage here.
It seems to me that suppressing material that complies with all the wikipedia policies, because it does not fit within someone's personal preconceptions is in effect practicing a form of POV pushing. I am sure many, maybe almost all apologists are oblivious to the fact that they are POV pushing, because they are unaware of their preconceptions. That doesn't alter that its effect is POV-pushing.
One of the organizations that Joint Task Force Guantanamo analysts used to justify continued detention of the captives is the Tablighi Jamaat movement. I had a long history of contributing to that article. This experience strongly reinforced for me the value of writing from a neutral point of view, avoiding sensational comments, even when the material seems sensational, and trusting that our readers are intelligent enough to reach their own conclusions. Admirers of the movement felt very strongly that the documentable allegations that an association with the movement was suspicious enough to justify years of extrajudicial detention.
The lesson I took away from my experience with the admirers of the Tablighi movement was the importance of not allowing other wikipedia contributors to suppress material that fully complied with all the wikipedia's policies just because those other wikipedia contributors could not square it with their POV. Geo Swan 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that labeling any person a terrorist, using only a singular source or primary source (here, the unreliable DoD), simply repeats the point of view of the DoD, and unfortunately doesn't seem to square with me per BLP. It's not the list itself, nor any of your contributions--if multiple sources or multiple governments labeled them as terrorists, I'd be fine with it. Using just the words of one government is the problem. It merely parrots and repeats the DoD's stance, and we can't give them (or the UK government, or the Saudi government, or whomever) any special weight or value. If we do this will either be an advocacy piece, or a hit piece/attack article, depending on the reader's point of view, and nothing more. As such, the article in it's current form (and name) is unacceptable.

Rename, multiple sources required. Probably should never exist at this current name, as it could be seen as an endorsement of the DoD stance, which we will not do. • Lawrence Cohen 12:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after moving to "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations" and including the Taliban and/or al Qaeda if those organizations are indeed listed by the Defense Department as terrorist organizations. Citation to a reliable source would be necessary for each entry. Such a sourced list would certainly be notable and would meet appropriate criteria for lists that this present article would not (the "other than" part is just too arbitrary). Erechtheus 02:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) See response below for new suggestion as to the appropriate result. Erechtheus 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Several of the correspondents here have suggested renaming the article and/or including the Taliban and/or al Qaed in the list. I have no problem with the wikipedia having an article that listed ALL the orgnaizations that US counter-terrorism experts suspect have ties to terrorism. I have no problem with the wikipedia having an article that tries to list ALL the organizations that any counter-terror analysts anywhere asserts has ties to terrorism.
- But those would be different lists than this one.
- Because several people have suggested this here I think it shows an area where this article could be improved. (I'll work on it. Check back later.) The reason why the Taliban and al Qaida should not be included in this list, is because this list is an annotated version of the list the Seton Hall legal scholars prepared of organizations that the JTF-GTMO analysts find suspicious, that are not on the official lists published by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. The Taliban and al Qaida are on the officially published lists
- As the Seton Hall report notes:

This inconsistency leads to one of two equally alarming conclusions: either the State Department is allowing persons who are members of terrorist groups into the country or the Defense Department bases the continuing detention of the alleged enemy combatants on a false premise."

In other words, while captives apprehended in Afghanistan were sent to Guantanmo based on an alleged association with these organizations, an alleged association with these organization would not prevent someone who wanted to commit a terrorist act in the USA from getting a valid, legal visa to travel to, and live in the USA.
The several dozen organizations on this list are far from the only organizations that have been used to justify the continued detention of captives. There are also several dozen organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which were on the DHS or State lists. Geo Swan 12:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the way this has gone and the responses by Geo Swan, delete. This content has a place on Wikipedia, I'm sure. In its present state, I find there to be some WP:BLP concerns but more a serious concern with WP:NPOV. I don't find the one-sidedness of what is trying to be accomplished in any way appropriate for this project. We're not supposed to be about advocacy, which is increasingly what it looks like is going on here. Erechtheus 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I always ask people who hint or state they have a POV concern about my contributions if they can help me understand their concerns. I asked Erechhtheus. And I appreciate that he or she took the time to reply. The (first?) trigger was the name of the article -- which triggered a concern over advocacy for them. It never occurred to me that the article should have a different name. But I told Erechtheus I had no objection to renaming the article. I suggested The Seton Hall compilation of organizations the Defense Department suspects have ties to terrorism. Here is our exchange.

Special disposition Keep the article; such lists have gotten enough press that I am confident about their notability. However, I have serious WP:BLP reservations about the names within the list unless otherwise corroborated. Ordinarily, reliable sources publish details about the information from which their conclusions are derived. Secret evidence requires circumspection. Its reliability is less verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your {{blp}} concern. All of the individuals listed in the article are named as members of these organizations in the memos prepared for their CSR Tribunals or their ARB hearings. As I understand it {{blp}} doesn't say articles can't contain allegations against individuals. It merely says that those allegations have to reference an authoritative, verifiable source. And these allegations do reference at least one verifiable, authoriative source. Geo Swan 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the concern is that parroting the United States point of view of who is a terrorist, without multiple sources, is the BLP violation. Just because a singular government says someone is something, does not make it so. "Multiple reliable sources". • Lawrence Cohen 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed to Delete below. For now. However, for BLP purposes, is one lone primary source (the US defense department) fine for BLP to accuse someone of terrorism, a pretty severe and life-changing accusation? I would think not, and this should be reviewed to that end. If secondary sources don't exist, no one should be on this list. To that end, it should be renamed. Would this count as a soapbox? Thinking aloud here. • Lawrence Cohen 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, changing from keep. All this is sourced to one primary source, the US department of defense. There are no secondary sources corroborating these allegations. • Lawrence Cohen 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by "There are no secondary sources corroborating these allegations."
- Are you saying you need to have a newspaper report, or an NGO, like Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, quote the JTF-GTMO documents, before you will agree they can be used? This does not make sense to me.
- The wikipedia should not be taking a stand as to whether the allegations against the captives are credible. I don't see how referencing the JTF-GTMO allegations, quoting the JTF-GTMO allegations, without taking a stand on their credibility, violated {{blp}}. The article is clear about who is making the allegation. The reader gets to decide how much credibility to invest in those allegations. Geo Swan 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list appears to be based on A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data, who has secondary sources. Mark Bendeaux[16] seem to have received a fair amount of media coverage for his work on Guantanamo detainees: [17] . Here's one source, unfortunately not free: [18]--Victor falk 09:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seton Hall team has published five papers, based on the same 517 memos:
- This list is an annotated version of an appendix from the second study -- Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy.
- Several people have said they think the article should have a different name. I disagree.
- I think e have to stick with the name the Seton Hall team originally chose. As I wrote above, we could certainly have a list that included the Taliban and al Qaeda -- but it would be a different list. Not the list described in the article. The reason why this particular selection of organizations should remain as-is, is that the main point of the article is that the people allegedly associated with one of the organizations on this list could get a visa to enter the USA, but, if captured in Afghanistan, the alleged association causes them to be sent to Guantanamo. As the Seton Hall article says, either JTF-GTMO is correct, and State and DHS are wrong, and the no-fly list is letting in passengers who are potentially dangerous terrorists -- or State and DHS are correct, and JTF-GTMO has been unnecessarily and wastefully holding innocent men for years. Geo Swan 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geo Swan
- Disclaimer -- I started this article.
- As I stated above, the nomination is based on serious misconceptions.
- Of course this list is important, very important, for several reasons:
- As I quoted above, the Seton Hall scholars pointed out that, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, have published lists or organizations their counter-terror analysts suspect of ties to terrorism. If someone applying for a visa to the USA is known to be associated with one of these organizations, they don't get a visa, they don't get a ticket. Or maybe they get arrested and extradited from the country where they applied for a visa. So, individuals believed to be associated with the organizations on this list CAN get a visa -- can fly to the USA -- can live and travel within the USA. They could even sign up for pilot training.
- It is not our place to insert our own opinions on the credibility of the allegations against the captives. Readers should be making up their own minds However, I believe providing the information that our readers can use to reach their own informed opinion.
- Readers deserve to be able to read about these organizations, and the allegations against the individuals held because they were alleged to be associated with them.
- I invite you all to look at Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Tablighi Jamaat is one of the organizations JTF-GTMO analysts assert has ties to terrorism that neither State or DHS have put on their suspicions lists. I have done a lot of work on that article. About three dozen captives faced the allegation that an association with the Tablighi movement tied them to terrorism. I like this article. I think it is balanced. I think it fully complies with all the wikipedia's policies. I think it stops well short of stating that the JTF-GTMO allegations involving Tablighi are questionable. About a year and a half after I started working on that topic I came across what I regard as a "smoking gun". I found that Fayad Yahya Ahmed had asked his Personal Representative for a document that explained how his association with Tabligh tied him to al Qaida. His Personal Representative told his Tribunal:

We searched for a document to show that there is a connection but did not find one."

I'd like to see as many of the organizations on this list as possible have articles like this one. Some organizations only have one or two Guantanamo captives associated with them. Those organizations probably don't merit articles of their own.
Cheers! Geo Swan 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources have reported on the list's existence, we can write about the list itself without naming everyone on the list. Please tell me if you can generate and source multiple reliable sources for each name on the list, which do not come from a single primary source (the United States government) asserting that these people are terrorists. If so, I will change this to Keep. Otherwise, this could even be speedy deleted as an attack article on the individuals listed. It also violates Neutral Point Of View to simply repeat a single nation's point of view on something like this, without multiple reliable sources from outside, unrelated parties. • Lawrence Cohen 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree.
I think it is in the captive's best interest to have neutral coverage of the allegations. You have looked into the captives circumstances deeply enough to have a healthy skepticism about the allegations. I think it is best, in the long run, to trust our readers, and count on their good judgement to reach their own conclusion, as we did.
Yes. They might reach a different conclusion than the one we reached. Well, that is life. It could be a sign that we might be mistaken. And, what if we are right, and the rest of the public is wrong? Well, the public might wise up, eventually. In which case we get to choose whether we want to say, "I told you so."
Or we might be right, and the rest of the public may never wise up. Well, that is just one of the less pleasant aspects of living in a democracy.
Back in 2003 George W. Bush thought the USA could force Iraq to appreciate US style democracy, at the point of a gun. I knew that could never work.
The way I see it, it is the same with the captives, and the allegations against them. If, for the sake of argument, the bulk of the public is not going to exercise healthy skepticism about the JTF-GTMO allegations, if they have a neutral presentation of those allegations, then I think suppressing those allegations would backfire.
Eventually the public would be likely to learn the information we wanted to suppress. I think getting the neutral presentation out there first is a far better choice then trying to suppress that info.
Do you think there is no way to cover the JTF-GTMO allegations without endorsing them? I don't see it that way at all.
In general, the more I learned about the allegations, the less credible I found it. I think the more our readers learn about the less credible they will find them.
How credible are the allegations? They are, in my personal opinion, dreadfully lacking in credibility. WP:NPOV doesn't permit me saying that, in article space. It doesn permit me to comment about the sensational aspects of the allegations in a sensational matter. But that shouldn't really matter.
I really have encountered a number of shameless POV-pushers who wanted to suppress coverage of the captive's allegations, and other aspects of their cases, because they thought that factual reporting of the very weak allegations was "anti-American".
Cheers! Geo Swan 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Does it line up with BLP and NPOV to list extremely negative allegations about living people from a single primary source in such a list format? If so, how? We have to be compliant with BLP. Also, NPOV has to be adhered to, as well. Using only the Department of Defense as a source, that is not a neutral source, which means that the article is not neutral. Neither is unfortunately acceptable. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lawrence. I am going to ask you return to the article, and check the list in more detail.
Check, and you will see that I never asserted that the captives were terrorists.
Check, and you will see that each individual's table entry in the list has the form:

Name Name'	Name Name faced the allegations during his CSR Tribunal that: Detainee participated in Organization XYZ XYZ is (known\|believed\|suspected) to have ties to (al Qaida\|the Taliban\|terrorism).

I strongly dispute that this violates WP:NPOV. On the contrary, I believe this is a very neutral way to cover this material.

I am not as familiar with WP:BLP as I am with WP:NPOV, but, as I wrote above, I am quite skeptical that reporting the existence of allegations violates the policy.

You and I are fully entitled to have our doubts about the credibility of the JTF-GTMO allegations. But:

I am very very skeptical that informing readers of the JTF-GTMO allegations opens the wikipediaa to any danger of libel or slander. The allegations are now very public. The DoD is not some anonymous blogger. In the very unlikely circumstance that one of the individuals named in this article goes to court, they will go to court against the USA, or George W. Bush -- not the wikipedia, or the New York Times, or any other party that repeated the JTF-GTMO allegations without endorsing them.
I am very skeptical that the passages you commented out violate {{blp}}.

I write on controversial topics. Consequently I bend over backwards to fully comply with WP:NPOV. I think I do a pretty good job. But I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So I do my best to take all civil, specific concerns that I have lapsed from this policy seriously.

I feel entitled to insist that those who have a POV concern make a meaningful effort to to be specific about the passages they object to. If there is a passage, or a number of passages, that you think do not comply with WP:NPOV I think you should explain your concern about those passages.

You have blanked out the bulk of this article, without a meaningful explanation. I find this highly disturbing.

How the heck am I to make improvements to this article, when you have blanked out 80% of it?

How the heck are the people who might want to express an opinion about this article, when you have blanked out 80% of it?

I urge you to restore the material you commented out.

I urge you to be specific about the passages that trigger your concern, and to explain why they trigger your concern. Geo Swan 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics: Specifically, I'm concerned about names of real people and organizations being listed on a page called Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda, when we have no evidence or reliable non-primary sources saying they are terrorists. As of this moment, we have in essence only the United States government saying a person named "Ali Smith" is a terrorist. Should we, based on that alone, list Ali Smith on something like List of Terrorists? Absolutely not, ever. If Saudi Arabia's military department labeled a C.I.A. agent named Stan Smith a terrorist, would we then included Stan Smith on List of Terrorists as well? No RS, no inclusion. Questions for you:

Why can't this article be about the existence of the list itself?
Do we have any neutral (not controlled by the US/DoD) media, other nations, or WP:RS that asserts these people are terrorists?
If someone besides yourself or I restores the list for the purposes of the discussion with sourced information that meet RS standards saying these people are terrorists, I will not object.

Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article report the actual allegations? Several reasons:

Because merely reporting allegations, from a highly verifiable source, without taking a stand as to the allegation's credibility, is not a violation of {{blp}}?
Because the credibility of the allegations is best viewed en masse?
Because, while it would be nice if we could feel confident that the verifiable, authoritative sources we have at our disposal was in line with what we personally regard as the truth, we can't count on that.
- If we work on enough articles we are going to come across instances where our personal idea of what is true, what is credible, is going to be at odds with the sources we have at our disposal,
- Suppressing material that is written from a neutral point of view, that cites verifiable, authoritative sources, because we don't agree with them, simply does not comply with WP:NPOV. Being neutral means we are not supposed to let our POV about what is true led us to suppress otherwise valid material.
- Sorry, but I think that is what you are doing here. In your personal opinion DoD allegations aren't a credible reliable source. You don't seem to realize that this is a highly controversial position.

In the interests of brevity I am going to address your other questions on the talk page. Geo Swan 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the DoD is doing the best job they can, and don't disagree with many of their assessments, even on this "list". However, we have *NO* sources yet provided that these accusations are notable. Do you have any 3rd party sources? Has any third party source reported on these accusations? If not, they're simply not notable, and goes back to my example of the Stan Smith CIA agent. Any nation saying something, from their government perspective, does not make it so, nor notable. If Germany names me as a terrorist, but no one cares enough to report on it on at least more than one non-German government source, odds are my accused terrorism isn't notable and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. No sources = no content, not included on Wikipedia. Please see WP:V. • Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh> And this assessment of yours is based on what? How many transcripts did you say you read? Geo Swan 18:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many I've read, or haven't read. BLP seems to be saying we err on the side of caution, and if something isn't reported by reliable sources (WP:RS), we can't verify if it's factual or not (WP:V), and so it is not notable (WP:N). If we try to bring it forward any other way it would be original research (WP:OR), which violates WP:NPOV. Add in that along the way, we'll be basically writing that "X is/is associated with terrorism", when they may not be, and doing possibly substantial damage to someone's name. This is a lose-lose situation for us and everyone. • Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further: so, no harm in an article about the list which was a research project by someone, but we can't be listing the people in the list without sufficient RS. • Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per my BLP concerns, I've hidden the Primary-sourced list from search engines until concerns are resolved, under WP:BLP. • Lawrence Cohen 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, the information is as said, important and should not be lost. I'm not opposed to trying to merge it with Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy if that won't make the article over-laborious, but strongly disagree about hiding the names of detainees based on allegations of "BLP" - the article does not suggest these people are terrorists, it lists them as people the study has defined as such, based on DoD actions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP's edict is "Do no harm". Do you not consider it harmful to list living people by name or groups under a page called in part, "List of terrorists", when there is no 3rd party sources calling them terrorists? We have some university researchers, restating/parroting what the U.S. DoD said, that person X is a terrorist. This is not encyclopediac. The existence of the list itself is. We have no reason to be listing these people thus without non-primary sources. Otherwise, this is functionally a reprinting of a possibly harmful claim. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It "does harm" to list Wolfram Sievers as a Nazi war criminal, but the Nuremberg trials declared him such - and he was imprisoned as such (and ultimately hanged). Similarly, this study did not independently label anybody a terrorist, it simply took the "associations" which the US DOD considered to indicate somebody was a terrorist, and put them in a list. A rewording of the title of the article might be in order, but certainly not deletion. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Sievers isn't alive, and was convicted in an international court of war crimes and murder. There is no harm in anything there to list him as a Nazi war criminal; that's what he was, and it is widely reported. In this case, we have the US suspecting people of terrorism/terrorist associations, and a group of researchers compiled names from government documents to assemble a new list on this. They published this list they made up, and we reposted it. If we have no secondary sources reporting that these people are terrorists, have terrorist ties, enjoy terrorism, read terrorist fiction, etc., anything, we shouldn't be listing them in a list, by name, on an article in part titled "List of terrorists...". Guilt and defamation by association, perhaps? There is no benefit to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to name these people (who are not convicted Nazi war criminals, let alone convicted of anything--well played on the Godwin invocation). They can't be listed here thus per BLP. Either way, the list itself isn't notable. It's a random research project that no-one has reported on. • Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find 3,190 google hits for the name of the report to which this list was attached. The 9/11 Commission accused a lot of living people of connection to terrorists, but we still report their assertions - even if they were made in an appendix of the Commission. See Hassan Ghul for one such example - you can't really claim "omg, BLP says that we can't include that detail of the 9/11 Commission's findings because it wasn't in a court of law!" We document who made the allegation (the DoD in this instance), and let the reader decide its credibility. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a total of 21 hits for it, only, when I exclude Wikipedia from searches, and go to the end of the search. Any primary/single source negative assertation to my knowledge should be excluded under BLP. Hassan Ghul is a red herring; he's widely reported on. I'm simply saying that no one should be on any list of this nature, with a name like this, without multiple non-trivial sources saying that "x is a terrorist/terrorist suspect". Otherwise, it's guilt by association, and that is wrong under BLP/NPOV. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even of those 21 unique hits, , I see Stanford, Oxford, the Commonwealth Institute, Refugee Council USA, Centre for Defence Information and the New York Times...that's a lot of large groups taking this study at face-value. WMF is no different. And I'm not sure if you're living under a rock, or just assume all "Guantanmo Prisoner X" stories are about the same guy - but the majority of these detainees are "libelled", as you would put it, in the daily newspapers. WMF is not alleging they are terrorists, they are repeating what the DoD, executive orders, the global media and a number of national courts which oversaw repatriated prisoners' trials, have already alleged. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent assertion of notability, over-reliance on primary sources, no independent assessment of value of the list or the article.ALR 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns including WP:BLP, a necessarily loosely defined standard, and the DOD's lackluster credibility. --Evb-wiki 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is important information, and US DOD view on who is and who is not an enemy should be noted - making it very clear that Wikipedia is merely repeating this information for the benefit of our readers, and the perspectives are those of the DOD personnel at Gitmo. Buckshot06 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the findings of this team of legal scholars should be mentioned in WP. However the list itself does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not notable, however, and there are no reliable sources corroborating these views. Unless reliable sources are found for the entries, for the list, this is unverifiable and the views of the DOD personnel at Gitmo would then be not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the list itself could be cited as a source for another WP article, since it was published in some form (by the college I guess), even if it is not notable enough to have its own article. Steve Dufour 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The value in that could be using the list as a possible RS to assert in an individual article that a given person is suspected/believed to be a terrorist by the US Government. As in, "Stan Smith is considered by the United States to be a terrorist.[1]" where 1 is this list? Just so I am understanding you. • Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was also thinking that the researchers' conclusion, which seems to be that the Department of Defense is holding people who would not be considered terrorists by other government agencies, could be mentioned in other articles. Steve Dufour 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that being a valid use for the data in the list, combined with other sources to supplement it. As it stands on it's own, though, this shouldn't be an article per BLP/NPOV without additional sources. It is fine one way, but not the other. • Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the nominator to clarify the grounds for his nomination and the policies it violates. The matter at hand is a bit more serious than an article about what a bored made up at school--victor falk 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article because the list itself seems to be non-notable, not being mentioned in secondary sources, and because the bulk of the article when I nominated it was a reprinting of the list. (An example: The fact that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize is notable. The statement by the Nobel Prize committee awarding him the prize would not be a suitable subject for a WP article.) Steve Dufour 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - btw, info on terrorist groups from multiple sources is covered in both War on terror and Terrorist groups. --Evb-wiki 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC
- This article, by contrast, is either a list with only one source (part of my blp concern) or an article about a non-notable list (a list without multiple 3-party coverage). --Evb-wiki 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with User:Buckshot06, this article should be kept, it is notable and is stated in a clear manner. But more should be added to the article, and we need some other sources as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete; sets a dangerous precedent. Keeping this would give carte blanche for the inclusion in Wikipedia of any list, compiled by any pseudo-governmental department of any country, of people who that source claims are terrorists. There are no secondary sources. ELIMINATORJR 19:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral -There is no list, and the article I see explains what the document is. The source is about infighting withing the US gov't. I guess that the topic is notable, but the list isn't. Speciate 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was obfuscated here from the article. The list itself, however, isn't notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is a wikipedia guideline, not a policy. It derives its authority from WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:OR. I think it is a good thing that it is not a policy, because, when it comes to a controversial topics, the notability metric fails. For controversial topics the evaluation of whenther material is "notable" relies entirely on the readers fund of general knowledge and point of view. For controversial topics any judgement as to whether material is notable is a POV evaluation.
- The Department of State has a published list of organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action. If you are known to belong to one of those organizations you can't get a visa. Possibly other actions too
- The Department of Homeland Security has a published list of organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action. If you are suspected of belonging to one of those organizations you will be on the "no-fly list", and can expect to be arrested by border agents, and possibly sent to Guantanamo.
- The Departmen of Defense has organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action against. Its list, or lists, are published, and only overlap the published lists of the other Departments by about 50%. If you are suspected of belonging to one of these organizations, you can expect to be sent to Guantanamo.
- In total, if you combined all these lists, you would have about 100 organizations. Given the seriousness of the "war on terror", given the seriousness of the assertions against these organizations., I don't see why all 100 or 200 of them don't merit coverage on the wikipedia.
- If you look at the list Lawrence Cohen obfuscated, you can see there is an entry for Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammad was alleged to be a member of Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammed acknowledged being a member of Itihad Islami -- which, it turns out is a member of the Northern Alliance. That is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The no-fly list of the US government is incredibly notable--if we don't have an article on it, we should. Should we thus include the contents of the no-fly list, by name? Doing so I contend, using only the US government as a source, would be a humongous BLP violation. • Lawrence Cohen 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you wrote, "you can see there is an entry for Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammad was alleged to be a member of Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammed acknowledged being a member of Itihad Islami -- which, it turns out is a member of the Northern Alliance. That is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia" Is that your conclusion, or did a reliable source come up with this conclusion? If a reliable source didn't come up with this conclusion, and you did, we absolutely cannot use such conclusions in an article per Wikipedia:No original research.
See the synthesis section:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." - WP:SYN

• Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of brevity, I have replied on the talk page. Geo Swan 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is getting far too convoluted with all these needless indented back and forths. This article is both a WP:BLP and WP:SYN/WP:OR violation. Source A (USA DOD) says, "This guy is a terrorist", in various documents; source B says, "Seton Hall has collected all these guys the DOD says in random documents are terrorists in an Appendix," and that C is this title of "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda" republishing all these names under a page called "List of terrorists". We're basically saying that they are terrorists. We can't combine sources to make a new conclusion. Listing all these people, who are not convicted of any terrorism in any sourced court of law, under an article called "List of Terrorists," while only listing various diaspora of allegations, means that this is both a BLP and SYNTH/OR violation. Even worse, I just realized that this reference it came from here doesn't even include all the allegations listed in the "List" we host on Wikipedia. All that was gleaned from the various documents. • Lawrence Cohen 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without regard to the actual controversial contents, this is still a list with only one primary source. While the topic is probably notable, we have no way of verifying the contents of the article. It's also patent POV (that of the DoD). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. An article with this title can never comply with WP:NPOV. By definition, it is the POV of the DoD. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable. PxMa 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Regular Google search and a Google news search have nothing. • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is called "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda so it's going to be pretty hard to get sources other then the DD, because it's their list. Also, google isn't everything. PxMa 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? This is not a DOD made list; this is a list generated as an Appendix (pages 11-12) of names gathered by staff at Seton Hall university. The article is about this list that they made. Specifically, this article is about pages 11-12 of a report that they did--not even the report itself. In essence, we have an article on a non-notable appendix of a non-notable report (which is now also up for AfD). So, also, if Google isn't everything, on what sources are you basing the notability of pages 11-12 of this report? • Lawrence Cohen 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an irrelevant issue. This can never fulfill WP:NPOV, it violates WP:V for relying solely on primary sources and violates WP:BLP for covering the persons rather than the overall event. All those are policy, notability is a secondary issue here. EconomicsGuy 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SheffieldSteel. The list is made up entirely from primary sources and so is inherently POV. Nothing else matters here. EconomicsGuy 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it inherently POV. A list of "The accusation of X" is by nature NPOV. There might be an issue with the level of weight it is given, but the US DoD is probably an organization that it isn't unreasonable to give a fair bit of weight to. JoshuaZ 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fair argument. However, I still don't see how a list of accusations as a stand alone article serves any purpose other than to present the POV of the DoD. A less detailed list could go into an article dealing with this in a larger more NPOV context. EconomicsGuy 23:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because "other than" introduces an irredeemably arbitrary and POV distinction. Also "terrorist" may not necessarily be a consensus definition. Cruftbane 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Individual members of the list may be notable and possibly mention on the list should be mentioned individually. However, this list as it currently stands is an unnecessary compilation of primary sources. JoshuaZ 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they have compiled a list, and we have reliable information about the list, we can and should keep the article, and quibbling about the source being positive or secondary is a little absurd. as long as there is good reason to think it authentic. This is not a list or terrorist organisations, this is a list of those that one notable group interested in such matters considers to be--and as such is notable. Consider a list that the soviet government might have made--it would be notable too, and those on it would have probably considered it an honor. DGG (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list however, isn't notable. There is no evidence of multiple reliable sources acknowledging it, nor citing it. • Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request that the following articles be nominated together:

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
Currently nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
No-hearing hearings
Mark Denbeaux

My opinion: that they be merged, per not forking content of articles, into Seton Hall reports, currently a disambiguation page to articles above, which is the the name under which their subject meets WP:N:

this request also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy--victor falk 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mark Denbeaux is idependently notable and should have his own article. JoshuaZ 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that... From his article: "Professor Denbeaux gained public exposure beyond the legal and academic communities with his publication February 8, 2006, of " Report on Guantanamo Detainees, A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis [...]"--victor falk 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a BLP accident waiting to happen. ---- WebHamster 23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above discussion, I believe WP ought to have an article on the reports - either one or several - and a full set of links to the reports so that people can find them, but not the actual details themselves (people disagree about whether it ought to be there, and it's probably be a bit long). I would also encourage those working on this subject to make it a little clearer where the information is on Wikipedia. Despite looking, I could not find the chart by detainee extracted above. Buckshot06 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this PDF here, and go to pages 11-12 at the end. That is the chart in question. • Lawrence Cohen 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere recapitulation of a primary source. If it's PD, post the document to WikiSource, but this is not what WP is here for. <eleland/talkedits> 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. Editor comments that this information is "important" are irrelevant; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for detailed "important" information. News stories about the list (compiling it, disagreements, consequences, etc.) are certainly proper for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but the list itself - no way. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Wow, where is Jimbo Wales when you need him? What afreakin' mess, violating WP:POV, WP:BLP, and WP:LIST all in one. We are not a web host for this academic spam. Bearian 21:44, 22 October 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.

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. I just don't see the reliable sources here for an article. If they do exist, I will consider undeletion. Note that this just applies for now to Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy, as the AFD notice was never put on the other articles. W.marsh 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy[edit]

Not a notable report. Having looked this up, if you do a simple Wikipedia search excluding both the words Wikipedia and blog, to exclude ourselves and unacceptable sources, we end up with just the NY Times referencing the report (once) and a lone university reference. See here. A news search with the same parameters reveals nothing. We have nothing, in essence, besides it's own self as a primary source, and the lone NY Times trivial reference. Delete as non-notable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect kinda, the source itself could be used on an appropriate page. Speciate 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where...? • Lawrence Cohen 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. No significant discussion by multiple independent reliable sources. -- But|seriously|folks 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. I suspect this exists only to support Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cruftbane 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request that the following articles be nominated together:

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
Currently nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
No-hearing hearings
Mark Denbeaux

My opinion: that they be merged, per not forking content of articles, into Seton Hall reports, currently a disambiguation page to articles above, which is the the name under which their subject meets WP:N:

this request also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda--victor falk 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. Mr. Denbeaux might be notable enough for his own article however. Steve Dufour 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The findings reported in the report should be cited in another article. However the report itself is not notable. Steve Dufour 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Seton Hall reports. Not notable on it's own, and could probably be shortened to fit into the main article per WP:CFORK Bfigura ^(talk) 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 11:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything into ~~Seton Hall report per victor falk and Bfigura ^(talk). Only then is it possible to discuss its notability --Brewcrewer 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Mark Denbeaux. Everything branches out of him. --Brewcrewer 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or only a partial-merge: You're mistaken about the Google search. Search for "Denbeaux study" and you'll see that it was notable enough that West Point did their own version to debunk it. I could see a partial merge of the lesser ones, but the main Denbeaux study deserves its own article. It was once a popular topic for a few leftist blogs. I strongly recommend naming that back to "Denbeaux study" (the original name), and putting "Denbeaux" in the names of the companion articles. Please DO NOT call any of them "Seton Hall Report." They're best known under the name Denbeaux, and some at Seton Hall probably don't deserve to be associated with the Denbeauxs. -- Randy2063 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, you need to adjust your search to this version, and click through to the end. Exclude all Wikipedia sites, all other Wikis, and all blogs, as they are unacceptable sources, click through to the last page for a true-ish count, which leaves us 20 hits. • Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the shame is really on me. I see that "Seton Hall study" finds more. That said, I will still shamelessly prefer calling it the "Denbeaux study." As for blogs, they're not good for sources but I think they should count in determining notablility. -- Randy2063 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really shouldn't. Anyone can go out and start any number of blogs and fill them with any kind of content. They don't do anything to establish notability.--Crossmr 04:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, "Denbeaux report" finds hundreds more. -- Randy2063 23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Mark Denbeaux takes the cake!--Brewcrewer 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but we could also just file everything under "Guantanamo" if we wanted to. -- Randy2063 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. I thought the question was to which one of the three aforementioned articles should the other two be merged into?--Brewcrewer 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being facetious to make a point. -- Randy2063 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if from Mark Denbeaux, Seton Hall study, and Denbeaux study, Mark Denbeaux gets the most ghits and everything under discussion originates from him, so why not make him the main page??--Brewcrewer 07:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, strong merge into [[[Seton Hall reports]]. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge -- today I opt for merge. Geo Swan 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seton Hall report. Merge the other spin-offs as well. The article is borderline notable, so reluctant to delete, but the article contains insufficient context. Perhaps with improvement, especially the addition of sourced commentary, the article might be split off again. --SmokeyJoe 13:37, 25 October 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared

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. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-hearing hearings[edit]

The report is non notable in and of itself, as it only garners 863 hits on Google, many of which are Wiki mirrors and therefore does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Information in the article also exist nearly verbatim in several other articles. Suggest a Merge with the Mark P. Denbeaux article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is an important article, widely cited. Geo Swan 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Several of the nominator's crticisms are issues that properly belong on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}.
- Comment — This is, IMO, a malformed nomination, and, as such, it should be withdrawn.
- Comment — The last time I looked this article fully complied with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. I think it is a mistake to argue that material that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER should be removed because it does not comply with some individuals perception of what is and isn't notable. Notability, in my experience, is a highly subjective and unreliable yardstick.

widely cited? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a broader article, most of this is just a restatement of context and the report's findings, which belong in an article about what the report studied, rather than just the report itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as this seems to essentially be a POV fork of Combat Status Review Tribunals or a related article. I am unconvinced that this report -- and the article is about the report, not any hearings -- is itself notable. It is a critique of the process that should properly be treated as a source for an article, not as a notable topic in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this article is a POV-fork. What POV are you asserting is being forked here? Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at Combatant Status Review Tribunal recently? It is already quite long. Long enough that it is time to consider splitting it, not merging in further, related articles. Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The Denbeauxs are charlatans but they're notable in the "anti-war" camp. It doesn't belong in the CSRT article because their reports require too much clarification that would clutter up that article. I could see there being one big Denbeaux studies article but I think it's better to have several short ones. -- Randy2063 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have great trouble accepting this as a neutral nomination. It is sourced, absolutely notable (the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!) and as such there is no reason to delete. However, certain editors consider any article that is vaguely critical of the Bush administration by defrinition POV. Maybe nominator has other thoughts than simply keeping up the encyclopeadic nature of WP.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Well, a quick recap of the notability of the No Hearings Hearings, and the sources used to validate this statement.

NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.

FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.

That leaves us with two sources directly mentioning, that coupled with the scarcity of hits on Google, and the fact that this report is not found in Google Scholarly Article search, means that this aint notable enough for its own article, and should be merged elsewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your concerns about the footnotes is one you should have raised on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}. You are misusing the {{afd}} fora.
A note to other readers, the two footnotes that Mr or Ms Tortuous Devastating Cudgel is objecting to are footnotes to the caption of the image of the trailer where the Tribunals were held.
I dispute that adding a picture of the trailer where the hearings were held violates WP:SYN or WP:NOR. Agreed? If so, then this objection really boils down to a concern over that caption.
- I didn't add the picture, or caption, to this particular article. But I added this picture, with a different caption, to another article, prior to the publication of the study. I was challenged to cite references that backed up that the captive spent the hearing bound hand and foot. I found some. I suspect that someone cut and pasted the image and caption I used, edited the caption, but kept the references.
- I am going to repeat that your objection to this article, based on these two references, seems to me to be a serious misuse of wikipolicies. And I strongly recommend you review them.
- FWIW, the study itself documents that shackling, hand and foot:
  "Each CSRT took place in a small room. Armed guards brought the detainee, shackled hand and foot, to the room, seated him in a chair against the wall and chained his shackled legs to the floor."
Cheers Geo Swan 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we have had no response to the fact WaPo and Village Voice documented the report. One would think it is difficult to be not notable when discussed in main stream publications.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a response to that. It wasn't an actual WaPo reporter, and the Village Voice columnist can't be taken seriously. There are only a few liberal commentators parroting spin. They clearly bought the misleading "92%" number as well as the bogus bounty hunters line without giving it a close look. There is no serious nonpartisan analysis for these reports.

-- Randy2063 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Delete on the basis of the evidence so far. There is no question whatsoever that the hearings are notable. This article, however, is about the book. Let's look at the refs: Some are about the topic, some are written by the same group, but it looks the the 3rd and 5th are mainly about the book. The NYT article is not. The second VV one mentions the book down at the bottom. where are some books reviews? The tendency to get as many articles as possible for one very notable topic does not make sense. DGG 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many articles are there? What topic do you mean?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no provisions in Wikpedia's notability guidelines that require a certain number of G-hits. What it does say is "The number [of secondary sources] needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." MoodyGroove 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Response Maybe the logic behind this nomination may be more apparent when you realise nominator has gone to several articles I edit (why has he forgotten this article?) and is massively deleting adequately sourced information there also. For some reason it always results in removing uncomfortable, yet sourced, information about the Bush administration. Coincidence is really an interesting topic.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book itself is POV, so there will always be some difficulty in keeping the article about it NPOV, but that's a matter of how the article is written, not whether it should exist. JamesMLane t c 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other WP:RS that mentioned or make available this NN report: US Senate Commitee on Armed Services(report!!), HRW, CCR. To insist on lack of notability is proof of inadequate knowledge of who cites it, insufficient grasp of policy or more sinister motives.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per all arguments above, and by subject matter of book. I hardly see how it isn't notable G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 23:26, 4 June 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Denbeaux}}

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. There are definite potential uses for sources from this article in other articles, but the arguments to delete here, praticularly with regards to the various WP:BLP issues and the fact this is sourced off one DOD list, are very strong. Most (not all) of the "keeps" seem based on the list being notable, but fail to address many of the concerns raised by those arguing "delete". Neil ☎ 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda[edit]

This article is about a list ~~made up~~ compiled not by the Defense Department but by a group of ~~law professors~~ legal scholars. The article doesn't cite any secondary sources that mention the list or tell why it is important. Most of the article ~~is made up~~ consists of repeating the names of groups mentioned on the list. Steve Dufour 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedia contributor, calling on the authority of {{blp}} has commented out 80% of this article.
I strongly dispute their reasoning. And I encourge those who wish to view this article to view this version. Geo Swan 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC) List now restored to the article.[reply]

Note There is an edit war deleting and undeleting the list and the sources [19] [20] [21]--victor falk 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator's justification is factually incorrect. A team of legal scholars read through the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the Guantanamo captives' Combatant Status Review Tribunals. They found that the allegations used to justify the captives' continued detention included alleged associations with dozens of organizations that are not on either the State Department's list of organizations proscribed due to suspected ties to terrorism, or on the Department of Homeland Security's list. The team of legal scholars did not make up this list, as nominator contends. They merely gathered the organizations listed in the allegations against the captives. Geo Swan 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like making up a list to me.(I do stand corrected on the point that the list makers were "legal scholars", not "law professors" as I said. )Steve Dufour 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus, it's all primary sources and functionally a hit piece/attack article. • Lawrence Cohen 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we all make an effort to be civil here?
I'd like to remind everyone that a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think calling the compiling of a list, based on a methodical analysis "making up a list" is highly misleading. I believe the phrase "making up a list" implies it is being made up out of thin air, not based on any research at all. Geo Swan 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable info. that should not be lost even if it's moved. JJL 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The list should be used as a primary source for other articles. It does not seem to be notable enough for its own article however. Besides that, how is anyone going to find it under its present title? Steve Dufour 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be careful about how I say this. Prior to initiating this {{|tl|afd}} our nominator discussed this article over on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Where he called the captives "bad guys". I am very concerned this nomination is another instance of a phenomenon I have discovered before.
I am concerned that the nominator has accepted the DoD's allegations at face value. There is an ongoing controversy over the credibility of the allegations. There is an ongoing controversy over how many of the captives actually merit the descriptions "worst of the worst", "captured on the battlefield", "very bad men", "terrorist". I have encountered other correspondents who discount the notability of the captives' testimony, of their denials of the allegations against them, of the comments of legal scholars who criticize the allegations, and criticize the Tribunal implementation, because they accept the allegations at face value, without applying any skepticism whatsoever.
It seems to me that our nominator doesn't recognize these controversies. It seems to me that the effect, if this nomination succeeds, would be to strip our readers of the information they need if they are to reach an informed decision as to the credibility of these allegations. I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing.
In my experience those who take the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) assertions about the captives at face value find almost nothing about them to be "notable". They discount everything that casts doubt on the JTF-GTMO allegations. Therefore they find nothing that casts doubt on the allegations worthy of coverage here.
It seems to me that suppressing material that complies with all the wikipedia policies, because it does not fit within someone's personal preconceptions is in effect practicing a form of POV pushing. I am sure many, maybe almost all apologists are oblivious to the fact that they are POV pushing, because they are unaware of their preconceptions. That doesn't alter that its effect is POV-pushing.
One of the organizations that Joint Task Force Guantanamo analysts used to justify continued detention of the captives is the Tablighi Jamaat movement. I had a long history of contributing to that article. This experience strongly reinforced for me the value of writing from a neutral point of view, avoiding sensational comments, even when the material seems sensational, and trusting that our readers are intelligent enough to reach their own conclusions. Admirers of the movement felt very strongly that the documentable allegations that an association with the movement was suspicious enough to justify years of extrajudicial detention.
The lesson I took away from my experience with the admirers of the Tablighi movement was the importance of not allowing other wikipedia contributors to suppress material that fully complied with all the wikipedia's policies just because those other wikipedia contributors could not square it with their POV. Geo Swan 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that labeling any person a terrorist, using only a singular source or primary source (here, the unreliable DoD), simply repeats the point of view of the DoD, and unfortunately doesn't seem to square with me per BLP. It's not the list itself, nor any of your contributions--if multiple sources or multiple governments labeled them as terrorists, I'd be fine with it. Using just the words of one government is the problem. It merely parrots and repeats the DoD's stance, and we can't give them (or the UK government, or the Saudi government, or whomever) any special weight or value. If we do this will either be an advocacy piece, or a hit piece/attack article, depending on the reader's point of view, and nothing more. As such, the article in it's current form (and name) is unacceptable.

Rename, multiple sources required. Probably should never exist at this current name, as it could be seen as an endorsement of the DoD stance, which we will not do. • Lawrence Cohen 12:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after moving to "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations" and including the Taliban and/or al Qaeda if those organizations are indeed listed by the Defense Department as terrorist organizations. Citation to a reliable source would be necessary for each entry. Such a sourced list would certainly be notable and would meet appropriate criteria for lists that this present article would not (the "other than" part is just too arbitrary). Erechtheus 02:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) See response below for new suggestion as to the appropriate result. Erechtheus 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Several of the correspondents here have suggested renaming the article and/or including the Taliban and/or al Qaed in the list. I have no problem with the wikipedia having an article that listed ALL the orgnaizations that US counter-terrorism experts suspect have ties to terrorism. I have no problem with the wikipedia having an article that tries to list ALL the organizations that any counter-terror analysts anywhere asserts has ties to terrorism.
- But those would be different lists than this one.
- Because several people have suggested this here I think it shows an area where this article could be improved. (I'll work on it. Check back later.) The reason why the Taliban and al Qaida should not be included in this list, is because this list is an annotated version of the list the Seton Hall legal scholars prepared of organizations that the JTF-GTMO analysts find suspicious, that are not on the official lists published by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. The Taliban and al Qaida are on the officially published lists
- As the Seton Hall report notes:

This inconsistency leads to one of two equally alarming conclusions: either the State Department is allowing persons who are members of terrorist groups into the country or the Defense Department bases the continuing detention of the alleged enemy combatants on a false premise."

In other words, while captives apprehended in Afghanistan were sent to Guantanmo based on an alleged association with these organizations, an alleged association with these organization would not prevent someone who wanted to commit a terrorist act in the USA from getting a valid, legal visa to travel to, and live in the USA.
The several dozen organizations on this list are far from the only organizations that have been used to justify the continued detention of captives. There are also several dozen organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which were on the DHS or State lists. Geo Swan 12:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the way this has gone and the responses by Geo Swan, delete. This content has a place on Wikipedia, I'm sure. In its present state, I find there to be some WP:BLP concerns but more a serious concern with WP:NPOV. I don't find the one-sidedness of what is trying to be accomplished in any way appropriate for this project. We're not supposed to be about advocacy, which is increasingly what it looks like is going on here. Erechtheus 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I always ask people who hint or state they have a POV concern about my contributions if they can help me understand their concerns. I asked Erechhtheus. And I appreciate that he or she took the time to reply. The (first?) trigger was the name of the article -- which triggered a concern over advocacy for them. It never occurred to me that the article should have a different name. But I told Erechtheus I had no objection to renaming the article. I suggested The Seton Hall compilation of organizations the Defense Department suspects have ties to terrorism. Here is our exchange.

Special disposition Keep the article; such lists have gotten enough press that I am confident about their notability. However, I have serious WP:BLP reservations about the names within the list unless otherwise corroborated. Ordinarily, reliable sources publish details about the information from which their conclusions are derived. Secret evidence requires circumspection. Its reliability is less verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your {{blp}} concern. All of the individuals listed in the article are named as members of these organizations in the memos prepared for their CSR Tribunals or their ARB hearings. As I understand it {{blp}} doesn't say articles can't contain allegations against individuals. It merely says that those allegations have to reference an authoritative, verifiable source. And these allegations do reference at least one verifiable, authoriative source. Geo Swan 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the concern is that parroting the United States point of view of who is a terrorist, without multiple sources, is the BLP violation. Just because a singular government says someone is something, does not make it so. "Multiple reliable sources". • Lawrence Cohen 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed to Delete below. For now. However, for BLP purposes, is one lone primary source (the US defense department) fine for BLP to accuse someone of terrorism, a pretty severe and life-changing accusation? I would think not, and this should be reviewed to that end. If secondary sources don't exist, no one should be on this list. To that end, it should be renamed. Would this count as a soapbox? Thinking aloud here. • Lawrence Cohen 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, changing from keep. All this is sourced to one primary source, the US department of defense. There are no secondary sources corroborating these allegations. • Lawrence Cohen 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by "There are no secondary sources corroborating these allegations."
- Are you saying you need to have a newspaper report, or an NGO, like Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, quote the JTF-GTMO documents, before you will agree they can be used? This does not make sense to me.
- The wikipedia should not be taking a stand as to whether the allegations against the captives are credible. I don't see how referencing the JTF-GTMO allegations, quoting the JTF-GTMO allegations, without taking a stand on their credibility, violated {{blp}}. The article is clear about who is making the allegation. The reader gets to decide how much credibility to invest in those allegations. Geo Swan 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list appears to be based on A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data, who has secondary sources. Mark Bendeaux[22] seem to have received a fair amount of media coverage for his work on Guantanamo detainees: [23] . Here's one source, unfortunately not free: [24]--Victor falk 09:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seton Hall team has published five papers, based on the same 517 memos:
- This list is an annotated version of an appendix from the second study -- Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy.
- Several people have said they think the article should have a different name. I disagree.
- I think e have to stick with the name the Seton Hall team originally chose. As I wrote above, we could certainly have a list that included the Taliban and al Qaeda -- but it would be a different list. Not the list described in the article. The reason why this particular selection of organizations should remain as-is, is that the main point of the article is that the people allegedly associated with one of the organizations on this list could get a visa to enter the USA, but, if captured in Afghanistan, the alleged association causes them to be sent to Guantanamo. As the Seton Hall article says, either JTF-GTMO is correct, and State and DHS are wrong, and the no-fly list is letting in passengers who are potentially dangerous terrorists -- or State and DHS are correct, and JTF-GTMO has been unnecessarily and wastefully holding innocent men for years. Geo Swan 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geo Swan
- Disclaimer -- I started this article.
- As I stated above, the nomination is based on serious misconceptions.
- Of course this list is important, very important, for several reasons:
- As I quoted above, the Seton Hall scholars pointed out that, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, have published lists or organizations their counter-terror analysts suspect of ties to terrorism. If someone applying for a visa to the USA is known to be associated with one of these organizations, they don't get a visa, they don't get a ticket. Or maybe they get arrested and extradited from the country where they applied for a visa. So, individuals believed to be associated with the organizations on this list CAN get a visa -- can fly to the USA -- can live and travel within the USA. They could even sign up for pilot training.
- It is not our place to insert our own opinions on the credibility of the allegations against the captives. Readers should be making up their own minds However, I believe providing the information that our readers can use to reach their own informed opinion.
- Readers deserve to be able to read about these organizations, and the allegations against the individuals held because they were alleged to be associated with them.
- I invite you all to look at Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Tablighi Jamaat is one of the organizations JTF-GTMO analysts assert has ties to terrorism that neither State or DHS have put on their suspicions lists. I have done a lot of work on that article. About three dozen captives faced the allegation that an association with the Tablighi movement tied them to terrorism. I like this article. I think it is balanced. I think it fully complies with all the wikipedia's policies. I think it stops well short of stating that the JTF-GTMO allegations involving Tablighi are questionable. About a year and a half after I started working on that topic I came across what I regard as a "smoking gun". I found that Fayad Yahya Ahmed had asked his Personal Representative for a document that explained how his association with Tabligh tied him to al Qaida. His Personal Representative told his Tribunal:

We searched for a document to show that there is a connection but did not find one."

I'd like to see as many of the organizations on this list as possible have articles like this one. Some organizations only have one or two Guantanamo captives associated with them. Those organizations probably don't merit articles of their own.
Cheers! Geo Swan 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources have reported on the list's existence, we can write about the list itself without naming everyone on the list. Please tell me if you can generate and source multiple reliable sources for each name on the list, which do not come from a single primary source (the United States government) asserting that these people are terrorists. If so, I will change this to Keep. Otherwise, this could even be speedy deleted as an attack article on the individuals listed. It also violates Neutral Point Of View to simply repeat a single nation's point of view on something like this, without multiple reliable sources from outside, unrelated parties. • Lawrence Cohen 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree.
I think it is in the captive's best interest to have neutral coverage of the allegations. You have looked into the captives circumstances deeply enough to have a healthy skepticism about the allegations. I think it is best, in the long run, to trust our readers, and count on their good judgement to reach their own conclusion, as we did.
Yes. They might reach a different conclusion than the one we reached. Well, that is life. It could be a sign that we might be mistaken. And, what if we are right, and the rest of the public is wrong? Well, the public might wise up, eventually. In which case we get to choose whether we want to say, "I told you so."
Or we might be right, and the rest of the public may never wise up. Well, that is just one of the less pleasant aspects of living in a democracy.
Back in 2003 George W. Bush thought the USA could force Iraq to appreciate US style democracy, at the point of a gun. I knew that could never work.
The way I see it, it is the same with the captives, and the allegations against them. If, for the sake of argument, the bulk of the public is not going to exercise healthy skepticism about the JTF-GTMO allegations, if they have a neutral presentation of those allegations, then I think suppressing those allegations would backfire.
Eventually the public would be likely to learn the information we wanted to suppress. I think getting the neutral presentation out there first is a far better choice then trying to suppress that info.
Do you think there is no way to cover the JTF-GTMO allegations without endorsing them? I don't see it that way at all.
In general, the more I learned about the allegations, the less credible I found it. I think the more our readers learn about the less credible they will find them.
How credible are the allegations? They are, in my personal opinion, dreadfully lacking in credibility. WP:NPOV doesn't permit me saying that, in article space. It doesn permit me to comment about the sensational aspects of the allegations in a sensational matter. But that shouldn't really matter.
I really have encountered a number of shameless POV-pushers who wanted to suppress coverage of the captive's allegations, and other aspects of their cases, because they thought that factual reporting of the very weak allegations was "anti-American".
Cheers! Geo Swan 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Does it line up with BLP and NPOV to list extremely negative allegations about living people from a single primary source in such a list format? If so, how? We have to be compliant with BLP. Also, NPOV has to be adhered to, as well. Using only the Department of Defense as a source, that is not a neutral source, which means that the article is not neutral. Neither is unfortunately acceptable. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lawrence. I am going to ask you return to the article, and check the list in more detail.
Check, and you will see that I never asserted that the captives were terrorists.
Check, and you will see that each individual's table entry in the list has the form:

Name Name'	Name Name faced the allegations during his CSR Tribunal that: Detainee participated in Organization XYZ XYZ is (known\|believed\|suspected) to have ties to (al Qaida\|the Taliban\|terrorism).

I strongly dispute that this violates WP:NPOV. On the contrary, I believe this is a very neutral way to cover this material.

I am not as familiar with WP:BLP as I am with WP:NPOV, but, as I wrote above, I am quite skeptical that reporting the existence of allegations violates the policy.

You and I are fully entitled to have our doubts about the credibility of the JTF-GTMO allegations. But:

I am very very skeptical that informing readers of the JTF-GTMO allegations opens the wikipediaa to any danger of libel or slander. The allegations are now very public. The DoD is not some anonymous blogger. In the very unlikely circumstance that one of the individuals named in this article goes to court, they will go to court against the USA, or George W. Bush -- not the wikipedia, or the New York Times, or any other party that repeated the JTF-GTMO allegations without endorsing them.
I am very skeptical that the passages you commented out violate {{blp}}.

I write on controversial topics. Consequently I bend over backwards to fully comply with WP:NPOV. I think I do a pretty good job. But I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So I do my best to take all civil, specific concerns that I have lapsed from this policy seriously.

I feel entitled to insist that those who have a POV concern make a meaningful effort to to be specific about the passages they object to. If there is a passage, or a number of passages, that you think do not comply with WP:NPOV I think you should explain your concern about those passages.

You have blanked out the bulk of this article, without a meaningful explanation. I find this highly disturbing.

How the heck am I to make improvements to this article, when you have blanked out 80% of it?

How the heck are the people who might want to express an opinion about this article, when you have blanked out 80% of it?

I urge you to restore the material you commented out.

I urge you to be specific about the passages that trigger your concern, and to explain why they trigger your concern. Geo Swan 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics: Specifically, I'm concerned about names of real people and organizations being listed on a page called Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda, when we have no evidence or reliable non-primary sources saying they are terrorists. As of this moment, we have in essence only the United States government saying a person named "Ali Smith" is a terrorist. Should we, based on that alone, list Ali Smith on something like List of Terrorists? Absolutely not, ever. If Saudi Arabia's military department labeled a C.I.A. agent named Stan Smith a terrorist, would we then included Stan Smith on List of Terrorists as well? No RS, no inclusion. Questions for you:

Why can't this article be about the existence of the list itself?
Do we have any neutral (not controlled by the US/DoD) media, other nations, or WP:RS that asserts these people are terrorists?
If someone besides yourself or I restores the list for the purposes of the discussion with sourced information that meet RS standards saying these people are terrorists, I will not object.

Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article report the actual allegations? Several reasons:

Because merely reporting allegations, from a highly verifiable source, without taking a stand as to the allegation's credibility, is not a violation of {{blp}}?
Because the credibility of the allegations is best viewed en masse?
Because, while it would be nice if we could feel confident that the verifiable, authoritative sources we have at our disposal was in line with what we personally regard as the truth, we can't count on that.
- If we work on enough articles we are going to come across instances where our personal idea of what is true, what is credible, is going to be at odds with the sources we have at our disposal,
- Suppressing material that is written from a neutral point of view, that cites verifiable, authoritative sources, because we don't agree with them, simply does not comply with WP:NPOV. Being neutral means we are not supposed to let our POV about what is true led us to suppress otherwise valid material.
- Sorry, but I think that is what you are doing here. In your personal opinion DoD allegations aren't a credible reliable source. You don't seem to realize that this is a highly controversial position.

In the interests of brevity I am going to address your other questions on the talk page. Geo Swan 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the DoD is doing the best job they can, and don't disagree with many of their assessments, even on this "list". However, we have *NO* sources yet provided that these accusations are notable. Do you have any 3rd party sources? Has any third party source reported on these accusations? If not, they're simply not notable, and goes back to my example of the Stan Smith CIA agent. Any nation saying something, from their government perspective, does not make it so, nor notable. If Germany names me as a terrorist, but no one cares enough to report on it on at least more than one non-German government source, odds are my accused terrorism isn't notable and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. No sources = no content, not included on Wikipedia. Please see WP:V. • Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh> And this assessment of yours is based on what? How many transcripts did you say you read? Geo Swan 18:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many I've read, or haven't read. BLP seems to be saying we err on the side of caution, and if something isn't reported by reliable sources (WP:RS), we can't verify if it's factual or not (WP:V), and so it is not notable (WP:N). If we try to bring it forward any other way it would be original research (WP:OR), which violates WP:NPOV. Add in that along the way, we'll be basically writing that "X is/is associated with terrorism", when they may not be, and doing possibly substantial damage to someone's name. This is a lose-lose situation for us and everyone. • Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further: so, no harm in an article about the list which was a research project by someone, but we can't be listing the people in the list without sufficient RS. • Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per my BLP concerns, I've hidden the Primary-sourced list from search engines until concerns are resolved, under WP:BLP. • Lawrence Cohen 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, the information is as said, important and should not be lost. I'm not opposed to trying to merge it with Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy if that won't make the article over-laborious, but strongly disagree about hiding the names of detainees based on allegations of "BLP" - the article does not suggest these people are terrorists, it lists them as people the study has defined as such, based on DoD actions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP's edict is "Do no harm". Do you not consider it harmful to list living people by name or groups under a page called in part, "List of terrorists", when there is no 3rd party sources calling them terrorists? We have some university researchers, restating/parroting what the U.S. DoD said, that person X is a terrorist. This is not encyclopediac. The existence of the list itself is. We have no reason to be listing these people thus without non-primary sources. Otherwise, this is functionally a reprinting of a possibly harmful claim. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It "does harm" to list Wolfram Sievers as a Nazi war criminal, but the Nuremberg trials declared him such - and he was imprisoned as such (and ultimately hanged). Similarly, this study did not independently label anybody a terrorist, it simply took the "associations" which the US DOD considered to indicate somebody was a terrorist, and put them in a list. A rewording of the title of the article might be in order, but certainly not deletion. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Sievers isn't alive, and was convicted in an international court of war crimes and murder. There is no harm in anything there to list him as a Nazi war criminal; that's what he was, and it is widely reported. In this case, we have the US suspecting people of terrorism/terrorist associations, and a group of researchers compiled names from government documents to assemble a new list on this. They published this list they made up, and we reposted it. If we have no secondary sources reporting that these people are terrorists, have terrorist ties, enjoy terrorism, read terrorist fiction, etc., anything, we shouldn't be listing them in a list, by name, on an article in part titled "List of terrorists...". Guilt and defamation by association, perhaps? There is no benefit to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to name these people (who are not convicted Nazi war criminals, let alone convicted of anything--well played on the Godwin invocation). They can't be listed here thus per BLP. Either way, the list itself isn't notable. It's a random research project that no-one has reported on. • Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find 3,190 google hits for the name of the report to which this list was attached. The 9/11 Commission accused a lot of living people of connection to terrorists, but we still report their assertions - even if they were made in an appendix of the Commission. See Hassan Ghul for one such example - you can't really claim "omg, BLP says that we can't include that detail of the 9/11 Commission's findings because it wasn't in a court of law!" We document who made the allegation (the DoD in this instance), and let the reader decide its credibility. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a total of 21 hits for it, only, when I exclude Wikipedia from searches, and go to the end of the search. Any primary/single source negative assertation to my knowledge should be excluded under BLP. Hassan Ghul is a red herring; he's widely reported on. I'm simply saying that no one should be on any list of this nature, with a name like this, without multiple non-trivial sources saying that "x is a terrorist/terrorist suspect". Otherwise, it's guilt by association, and that is wrong under BLP/NPOV. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even of those 21 unique hits, , I see Stanford, Oxford, the Commonwealth Institute, Refugee Council USA, Centre for Defence Information and the New York Times...that's a lot of large groups taking this study at face-value. WMF is no different. And I'm not sure if you're living under a rock, or just assume all "Guantanmo Prisoner X" stories are about the same guy - but the majority of these detainees are "libelled", as you would put it, in the daily newspapers. WMF is not alleging they are terrorists, they are repeating what the DoD, executive orders, the global media and a number of national courts which oversaw repatriated prisoners' trials, have already alleged. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent assertion of notability, over-reliance on primary sources, no independent assessment of value of the list or the article.ALR 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns including WP:BLP, a necessarily loosely defined standard, and the DOD's lackluster credibility. --Evb-wiki 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is important information, and US DOD view on who is and who is not an enemy should be noted - making it very clear that Wikipedia is merely repeating this information for the benefit of our readers, and the perspectives are those of the DOD personnel at Gitmo. Buckshot06 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the findings of this team of legal scholars should be mentioned in WP. However the list itself does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not notable, however, and there are no reliable sources corroborating these views. Unless reliable sources are found for the entries, for the list, this is unverifiable and the views of the DOD personnel at Gitmo would then be not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the list itself could be cited as a source for another WP article, since it was published in some form (by the college I guess), even if it is not notable enough to have its own article. Steve Dufour 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The value in that could be using the list as a possible RS to assert in an individual article that a given person is suspected/believed to be a terrorist by the US Government. As in, "Stan Smith is considered by the United States to be a terrorist.[1]" where 1 is this list? Just so I am understanding you. • Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was also thinking that the researchers' conclusion, which seems to be that the Department of Defense is holding people who would not be considered terrorists by other government agencies, could be mentioned in other articles. Steve Dufour 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that being a valid use for the data in the list, combined with other sources to supplement it. As it stands on it's own, though, this shouldn't be an article per BLP/NPOV without additional sources. It is fine one way, but not the other. • Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the nominator to clarify the grounds for his nomination and the policies it violates. The matter at hand is a bit more serious than an article about what a bored made up at school--victor falk 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article because the list itself seems to be non-notable, not being mentioned in secondary sources, and because the bulk of the article when I nominated it was a reprinting of the list. (An example: The fact that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize is notable. The statement by the Nobel Prize committee awarding him the prize would not be a suitable subject for a WP article.) Steve Dufour 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - btw, info on terrorist groups from multiple sources is covered in both War on terror and Terrorist groups. --Evb-wiki 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC
- This article, by contrast, is either a list with only one source (part of my blp concern) or an article about a non-notable list (a list without multiple 3-party coverage). --Evb-wiki 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with User:Buckshot06, this article should be kept, it is notable and is stated in a clear manner. But more should be added to the article, and we need some other sources as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete; sets a dangerous precedent. Keeping this would give carte blanche for the inclusion in Wikipedia of any list, compiled by any pseudo-governmental department of any country, of people who that source claims are terrorists. There are no secondary sources. ELIMINATORJR 19:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral -There is no list, and the article I see explains what the document is. The source is about infighting withing the US gov't. I guess that the topic is notable, but the list isn't. Speciate 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was obfuscated here from the article. The list itself, however, isn't notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is a wikipedia guideline, not a policy. It derives its authority from WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:OR. I think it is a good thing that it is not a policy, because, when it comes to a controversial topics, the notability metric fails. For controversial topics the evaluation of whenther material is "notable" relies entirely on the readers fund of general knowledge and point of view. For controversial topics any judgement as to whether material is notable is a POV evaluation.
- The Department of State has a published list of organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action. If you are known to belong to one of those organizations you can't get a visa. Possibly other actions too
- The Department of Homeland Security has a published list of organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action. If you are suspected of belonging to one of those organizations you will be on the "no-fly list", and can expect to be arrested by border agents, and possibly sent to Guantanamo.
- The Departmen of Defense has organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action against. Its list, or lists, are published, and only overlap the published lists of the other Departments by about 50%. If you are suspected of belonging to one of these organizations, you can expect to be sent to Guantanamo.
- In total, if you combined all these lists, you would have about 100 organizations. Given the seriousness of the "war on terror", given the seriousness of the assertions against these organizations., I don't see why all 100 or 200 of them don't merit coverage on the wikipedia.
- If you look at the list Lawrence Cohen obfuscated, you can see there is an entry for Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammad was alleged to be a member of Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammed acknowledged being a member of Itihad Islami -- which, it turns out is a member of the Northern Alliance. That is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The no-fly list of the US government is incredibly notable--if we don't have an article on it, we should. Should we thus include the contents of the no-fly list, by name? Doing so I contend, using only the US government as a source, would be a humongous BLP violation. • Lawrence Cohen 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you wrote, "you can see there is an entry for Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammad was alleged to be a member of Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammed acknowledged being a member of Itihad Islami -- which, it turns out is a member of the Northern Alliance. That is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia" Is that your conclusion, or did a reliable source come up with this conclusion? If a reliable source didn't come up with this conclusion, and you did, we absolutely cannot use such conclusions in an article per Wikipedia:No original research.
See the synthesis section:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." - WP:SYN

• Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of brevity, I have replied on the talk page. Geo Swan 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is getting far too convoluted with all these needless indented back and forths. This article is both a WP:BLP and WP:SYN/WP:OR violation. Source A (USA DOD) says, "This guy is a terrorist", in various documents; source B says, "Seton Hall has collected all these guys the DOD says in random documents are terrorists in an Appendix," and that C is this title of "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda" republishing all these names under a page called "List of terrorists". We're basically saying that they are terrorists. We can't combine sources to make a new conclusion. Listing all these people, who are not convicted of any terrorism in any sourced court of law, under an article called "List of Terrorists," while only listing various diaspora of allegations, means that this is both a BLP and SYNTH/OR violation. Even worse, I just realized that this reference it came from here doesn't even include all the allegations listed in the "List" we host on Wikipedia. All that was gleaned from the various documents. • Lawrence Cohen 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without regard to the actual controversial contents, this is still a list with only one primary source. While the topic is probably notable, we have no way of verifying the contents of the article. It's also patent POV (that of the DoD). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. An article with this title can never comply with WP:NPOV. By definition, it is the POV of the DoD. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable. PxMa 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Regular Google search and a Google news search have nothing. • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is called "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda so it's going to be pretty hard to get sources other then the DD, because it's their list. Also, google isn't everything. PxMa 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? This is not a DOD made list; this is a list generated as an Appendix (pages 11-12) of names gathered by staff at Seton Hall university. The article is about this list that they made. Specifically, this article is about pages 11-12 of a report that they did--not even the report itself. In essence, we have an article on a non-notable appendix of a non-notable report (which is now also up for AfD). So, also, if Google isn't everything, on what sources are you basing the notability of pages 11-12 of this report? • Lawrence Cohen 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an irrelevant issue. This can never fulfill WP:NPOV, it violates WP:V for relying solely on primary sources and violates WP:BLP for covering the persons rather than the overall event. All those are policy, notability is a secondary issue here. EconomicsGuy 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SheffieldSteel. The list is made up entirely from primary sources and so is inherently POV. Nothing else matters here. EconomicsGuy 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it inherently POV. A list of "The accusation of X" is by nature NPOV. There might be an issue with the level of weight it is given, but the US DoD is probably an organization that it isn't unreasonable to give a fair bit of weight to. JoshuaZ 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fair argument. However, I still don't see how a list of accusations as a stand alone article serves any purpose other than to present the POV of the DoD. A less detailed list could go into an article dealing with this in a larger more NPOV context. EconomicsGuy 23:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because "other than" introduces an irredeemably arbitrary and POV distinction. Also "terrorist" may not necessarily be a consensus definition. Cruftbane 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Individual members of the list may be notable and possibly mention on the list should be mentioned individually. However, this list as it currently stands is an unnecessary compilation of primary sources. JoshuaZ 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they have compiled a list, and we have reliable information about the list, we can and should keep the article, and quibbling about the source being positive or secondary is a little absurd. as long as there is good reason to think it authentic. This is not a list or terrorist organisations, this is a list of those that one notable group interested in such matters considers to be--and as such is notable. Consider a list that the soviet government might have made--it would be notable too, and those on it would have probably considered it an honor. DGG (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list however, isn't notable. There is no evidence of multiple reliable sources acknowledging it, nor citing it. • Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request that the following articles be nominated together:

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
Currently nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
No-hearing hearings
Mark Denbeaux

My opinion: that they be merged, per not forking content of articles, into Seton Hall reports, currently a disambiguation page to articles above, which is the the name under which their subject meets WP:N:

this request also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy--victor falk 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mark Denbeaux is idependently notable and should have his own article. JoshuaZ 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that... From his article: "Professor Denbeaux gained public exposure beyond the legal and academic communities with his publication February 8, 2006, of " Report on Guantanamo Detainees, A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis [...]"--victor falk 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a BLP accident waiting to happen. ---- WebHamster 23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above discussion, I believe WP ought to have an article on the reports - either one or several - and a full set of links to the reports so that people can find them, but not the actual details themselves (people disagree about whether it ought to be there, and it's probably be a bit long). I would also encourage those working on this subject to make it a little clearer where the information is on Wikipedia. Despite looking, I could not find the chart by detainee extracted above. Buckshot06 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this PDF here, and go to pages 11-12 at the end. That is the chart in question. • Lawrence Cohen 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere recapitulation of a primary source. If it's PD, post the document to WikiSource, but this is not what WP is here for. <eleland/talkedits> 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. Editor comments that this information is "important" are irrelevant; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for detailed "important" information. News stories about the list (compiling it, disagreements, consequences, etc.) are certainly proper for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but the list itself - no way. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Wow, where is Jimbo Wales when you need him? What afreakin' mess, violating WP:POV, WP:BLP, and WP:LIST all in one. We are not a web host for this academic spam. Bearian 21:44, 22 October 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.

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. WP:BLP is also valid for suspected terrorists and the like, and the lack of third party sources about this person (or at least such sources which use his name) is a very vald concern. Fram 10:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Gulam Rasoul[edit]

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this concern. The allegations against him, and his testimony on his behalf is about him. The nominator, and this respondent, are perfectly free to regard the allegations against the captive, and his tetimony on his behalf, as not worthy of their notice. But should they be decideing for everyone else that the allegatins and testimony is not worthy of anyone else's notice?
- Respondent above asserts that the captive would only merits coverage for "one event".
- The most recently released Summary of Evidence memo states that he was captured with two Casio F91W watches. This is the same model that Ahmed Ressam the Millinium bomber was carrying Ahmed Ressam was carrying two so he could use them to as the timers for timebombs at LAX airport. The DoD was widely criticized for using possession of a watch as a justification for holding a captive for years in in Guantanamo. Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is the first captive I have come across who was accused of carrying two of these watches.
- He was alleged to have injured by ordnance in the 1990s. Why isn't this considered a separate event?
- Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is one of the captives who explicitly testified his own Koran was treated with disrespect by a guard. We don't have to believe this testimony to regard it as meriting coverage. There were world-wide riots over the allegations of Koran abuse. People were killed in these riots. They attracted world-wide media coverage. Some commentators stated that the allegations were all third person, that one of those complaining were complainabout somethin they saw with their own eyes. Well Abdullah Gulam Rasoul testified he saw it with his own eyes. And that merits coverage.
- Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is alleged to have been posted to the Kuli Urdu barracks. Why isn't this considered a separate event? Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy~~ keep -- nominator has used the same text to nominate two other articles for deletion. The same response I offered there applies here. I tried my best to understand the nominator's interpretation of {{blp}} elsewhere. I am quite frustrated that nominator won't acknowledge that his demand that we prove the truth of the assertions in the sources we cite is contrary to WP:VER, which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". Cheers! Geo Swan 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disputed that I have ever engaged in POV-pushing on this wikipedian's talk page. This wikipedian is an administrator, and should be trying to set an example. He should know better than to engage in baseless name-calling. Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some administrators agree with this interpretation of {{blp}}. And several administrators disagree. My own reading of WP:VER and WP:NPOV is that they do not require that the allegations we report be true, only that they are verifiable. I think this was a very wise decision on the part of those who drafted those policies, because there will be endless debate over what is true, while resolving what is verifiable is much less contentious. Further, if we were to take a stand on what was true, as the nominator and this respondent suggest, we would have to abandon neutrality. That is not our role.
- The nominator knew there was a controversy over this interpretation of {{blp}}. I think it was regrettable he chose to proceed with further {{afd}} under this justification until after the controversy over this interpretation was resolved. Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subject has been held, without charge, for five years.
  - Subject has been stripped of the traditional principle of the presumption of innocence.
  - Subject has had the information from three of these controversial administrative procedures made public.
  - Subject is being held, in part, because he was present at the riot at Qali-Jangi prison in Mazari Sharif
  - I'm new to this WP:BLP1E argument. Can you explain why these should be interpreted as a "single event"?
  - Cheers! Geo Swan 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because they're all about one thing: his detention in Guantanamo. There is no other biographical information about this person, or the other two articles up for deletion. They are, in essence, only about a single event in this person's life, which fails WP:BLP1E. At best, some of this information would be relevant in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article, but there's not enough biographical information to have a neutral article about these people as individuals. -- Kesh 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any article which is not about the person, but about an event they were involved in, is not a biographical article and thus fails WP:BLP1E. All three of the currently nominated articles are exactly in this vein. If other articles about detainees are similar, yes, they should also be deleted. If those other articles have neutral biographical information, with a sub-section on the person's detention, that would be more proper. I can't speak in detail without knowing which other articles you're referring to, though. -- Kesh 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E is pretty clear and this appears to be yet another case of it. Notability is something that is established over a period of time, not whipped up in a very small and short lived media storm.--Crossmr 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure five years of arbitration, administrative reviews, newspaper stories and criminal charges make these people noteworthy over a period of time, not a "short-lived media storm". I mean hell, go delete Chris Crocker for that nonsense, not Guantanamo detainees alleged to be among the worst terrorists in the world. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. All of the coverage is about the detainees plural. There's no substantial or neutral coverage of individuals (aside from primary sources whose neutrality is disputed). --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...that's not true at all. There are media stories about pretty much every detainee held. As they're repatriated, charged, or their lawyers approach tthe media. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where then are the sources on Abdullah Gulam Rasoul? • Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I google him and eliminate all sites that fail WP:RS, I am left with nothing at all. In fact, of those five hits, four are of no use to us. Three are Wikipedia mirrors, and Spock.com is not reliable for anything at all. An all-dates Google News search has nothing. Even the "Did you mean?" suggestion from Google News has nothing. That is all dates--full archive. Do you know of any other sources that are not primary sources (e.g., US Government)?

All we have is this list of names, and nothing else. • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been asked to revisit this by Geo Swan. I am still in favour of deletion because this article is only a negatively-slanted summary of what has happened to the subject since his detention and does not contain any substantial details about his life or, indeed, why he should be considered notable beyond the one event. We may have (justified) opposition to Guantanamo Bay, but we can't hang up our problems with it on a coatrack like this. I also incorporate by reference Kesh's excellent comment below. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them. DGG (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutral. DGG (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read comments here that are obviously sincere. I would really appreciate it if those who say this article is insufficiently referencd to explain their reasoning. I don't understand this concern. The wikipolicies only say that primary sources must be used with care. And I used them with care.
- The comment above praises the quality of the nominator's research. Nominator also nominatee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh at the same time. That nomination is a word for word copy of this nomination, right down to complaining about Zahid Al-Sheikh situation as a Guantanamo captive. The trouble is that Zahid Al-Sheikh is not a Guantanamo captive, and the article about him never said he was a Guantanamo captive.
- Nominator is on record as saying that he thinks the DoD is doing a good job running Guantanamo. We live in free countries. Nominator is perfectly free to believe whatever he wants. He is perfectly free to say whatever he wants -- elsewhere. He would not be free to say -- "ignore the captive's tesimony. The DoD is doing a good job!", in articles about the captives. He would be perfectly free to quote Mitt Romney saying the DoD is doing a good job. Atrtibuting quotes is not a violation of POV.
- Similarly, the nominator would be out of bounds arguing we should delete articles simply because he does not believe the captive's testimony. Our readers are entitle to read material here that is written from a neutral point of view, and complies with the wikipedia's other core policies, which I believe this does, and make up their own minds as to whether they are going to believe the DoD is doing a good job. I am not a mind reader. I am not suggesting the nominator consciously chose to suppress this material simply out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But other people have made clear that this is exactly the reason they don't want the wikipedia to cover this material. Geo Swan 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The secondary sources do not even mention Rasoul by name. Obviously the situation is notable but there is no notability to Rasoul that I can see; he is as un-notable (or notable, if you prefer) as the people that died in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge (we had the names at one point but I see that they are gone now). Say what you will about the situation but that does not imply notability for the victims (or the "suspects") --Justanother 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in the captions don't particularly reference the captive. That is because some other wikipedians complained about the text in the captions be referenced. Other wikipedians challenged that the captives were chained to a ringbolt in the floor. So I provided that reference User:Butseriouslyfolks complained about an earlier wording of this caption, that stated that most of the Tribunals went unattended by the Press. So I repalced that passages with a passage that referenced a DoD official stating that only 37 of the Tribunas were attended by the Press. I would really appreciate an explanation as to how the use of these references is grounds for deletion.
- The various policies do not proscribe using Primary sources. They merely state they should be used with care. I used them with care. Geo Swan 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean simply that the secondary sources used in the article do not mention Rasoul by name (unless I missed the mention). It almost seems that these Gitmo articles are based on "expected notability" or "supposed notability", i.e "these guys, as individuals, would be notable if someone were to write a story on them". WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Justanother 12:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The transcripts don't explicitly identify him by name. But they do mention him epxlicitly identify him -- by his ID number. Each page of the transcripts is identified by his ID number. So, except for the references in the captions, which I explained above, all the references do explicitly identify him. I hope this helps you. Geo Swan 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This individual is not notable in his own right. He is not different from any of the other Gitmo detainees, in fact, much of the article isn't about him, but about the Combatant status review tribunals as a whole. Fails WP:N. --Raoulduke47 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this argument. Just because they all ended up in Gauntanamo doesn't mean the captives are indistinguishable. They each faced an unique set of allegations. And they each provided unique testimony on their onw behalf. In his case he face three different unique sets of allegations
- If, in your opinion, the article contains extra material, how does that become grounds for deletion? Surely that is a concern that you should address on the talk page, or in an edit summary, when you delete the material you consider redundant or out of place? Geo Swan 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of who is distinguishable, it's a question of who is notable, per WP:N. And Abdullah Gulam Rasoul never did anything to make himself notable. He is just another Taliban footsoldier, like there were thousands of others, he wasn't a famous Taliban leader, or a prominent member of any islamist organization. All he did was to get captured by US forces, and sent to Guantanamo.

Also, removing "extra material" would not help at all, because it is the fundamental nature of the article that is flawed. The central theme is not Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, the person, about whom very little is known, or presents any interest. It is, in fact, about the Guantanamo detention system, and the combatant status review tribunals. This is, IMO, the only aspect that is worthy of study. If you were to rename the article to "the case of Abdullah Gulam Rasoul", then you could argue over the possible notable legal aspects of his review. As it stands, this article is not acceptable. --Raoulduke47 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As Raoulduke47 says above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, third-party sources appear, such as coverage in a news article, book, or journal article. --Delirium 08:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reduced content to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and redirect. References are unusual and do not necessarily fail WP:N, and so keep is not unreasonable. However, much of the content is either not about the subject or is not clearly referenced, leaving little clearly verified informtion about the subject. No good reason to delete instead of merge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe 06:38, 31 October 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.

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, reliable third party sources have been added. Fram 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Al-Sheikh[edit]

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised, see below. -- Kesh 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep -- nominator has used the same text to nominate two other articles for deletion. The same response I offered there applies here. I tried my best to understand the nominator's interpretation of {{blp}} elsewhere. I am quite frustrated that nominator won't acknowledge that his demand that we prove the truth of the assertions in the sources we cite is contrary to WP:VER, which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". Cheers! Geo Swan 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that I am POV-pushing. Geo Swan 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the author has been POV-pushing or not is absolutely irrelevant to an AfD. You are not asked to condone the current version of the article, , only that one should exist. Please rewrite POV articles, do not try to have them deleted. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the author has created these articles to POV push, rather than because the subjects are notable. -- But|seriously|folks 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a source for 'worst of the worst'? That might be notable if it can be verified. (Asking as I didn't see it in the article). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the captives are "the worst of the worst"?
RumsfeldLinda D. Kozaryn (January 28, 2002). "U.S. Gains Custody of More Detainees". American Forces Press Service. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Jeff Sessions (June 16, 2005). "Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions: THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTANAMO". United States Senate. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Mike Crapo (June 27, 2005). "NO PRISONER ABUSE AT GUANTANAMO, WORK KEEPING AMERICANS SAFER FROM TERRORISM: Senator one of five conducting inspections at detention site in Cuba". United States Senate. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Mike Crapo (June 27, 2005). "Guantanamo Congressional Record Statement: Transcript of remarks on the floor of the Senate - June 27, 2005". United States Senate. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Jim Bunning (July 11, 2007). "Floor Speech On Iraq And The War On Terror: United States Senate, Washington, DC Wednesday, July 11, 2007". United States Senate. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Suzanne Struglinski (August 3, 2005). "Porter tours Guantanamo Bay, says guards fighting terrorism". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Ari Fleischer (January 23, 2002). "Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer". Whitehouse. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
"DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. McChrystal". Department of Defense. March 31, 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
Cheers! Geo Swan 04:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThose seem to be comments about the detainees in general. There's no mention of any one person in particular. Comments about the detainees in general would suggest there's probably more point to merging this into one article. (Also, would you mind not making your comments small. It can be hard to read.) Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is the one event this person is supposedly notable for notable in and of itself? If so, is there a reason we can't stop wasting time and just merge and redirect to said event? RFerreira 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found some additional references -- including the 9-11 Commission's report. I hope this answers your questions. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a mystery here:
- Stifle's preceding comment that justified deletion based on "one event", is date-stamped over half-an-hour after I added half a dozen additional referenences. I think we can all agree that no one can reasonably assert WP:BLP1E when the subject
- Played a role in resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
- Allegedly played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing;
- Allegedly played a role in planning Operation Bojinka;
- And directed non-governmental organizations that aid refugees;
- I am going to assume good faith, and assumme Stifle started their comment earlier today, and got diverted, and didn't think to check the currect state of the article when he or she finally got around to making the submission.
- I am going to question using WP:NPOV as a justification for deletion. The various deletion documents used to be pretty clear that the recommended action if a wikipedian had a concern that an article did not comply with WP:NPOV was to rais their concern on the article's talk page -- not deletion.
- FWIW, in general, I would encourage people who are going to participate in the deletion fora to go for quality participation, not quantity. I would encourage people to not just read other people's comments, but to actually take a look at the article in question for themselves. Geo Swan 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that. I should explain that I participate in a reasonably large amount of AFDs and tend to open up a lot of articles at a time in several tabs, then go through them and comment on the AFD. Sometimes I get called away to do something else, leaving the tabs open. It's likely, as Geo Swan suggests (I don't remember all of this myself as I have been preoccupied with several other concerns this week), that I was reading the earlier version. Thanks to Geo Swan for calling my attention back to the debate on my talk page, and keep the new version with a warning to trim for POV. The article should be about the person concerned and should not be aimed at publicizing a cause, raising awareness, or opposing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, irrespective of how reprehensible we may think it is. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. This particular person undoubtedly he, for he is either of of the significant leaders, or very close to them. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them.DGG (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutrality.DGG (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I couldn't agree more. I think this is the most cogent statement I've seen in this series of AfDs stating how BLP applies to this article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)~~ striking see below, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I know the various deletion guidelines suggest adding articles you comment on to your watchlist. I pointed out, on the {{afd}}, that I did more research, and found additional references.
- When User:Stifle left a comment, half an hour after I added the additional references, I left a second, more detailed note. I keep multipe windows open. I told Stifle I could understand how he might have missed
- Zahid al-Sheikh is not a Guantanamo captive.
  - Zahid al-Sheikh fought in Afghanistna in the 1980s.
  - Zahid al-Sheikh is suspected of playing a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
  - Zahid al-Sheikh is suspected of helping to plan Operation Bojinka, in 1995.
  - Zahid al-Sheikh became a director of various NGOs that aid refugees, from 1991 through 2001.
- Stating the obvious, this is four events, not one event. Geo Swan 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GeoSwan's NPOV additions. Clearly this isn't a coatrack now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Okay, I missed Geo Swan's earlier update on this article. My apologies. That said, the new version is much better. I'm still not totally convinced it passes WP:BLP, but it's no longer a WP:BLP1E issue. It can probably be improved even more from this point, so I'll abstain and just call my !vote Neutral for now. -- Kesh 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reading the article I find nothing in it that convinces me of the notability of the subject, most of the references appear from glancing at the references list to refer to persons other than the subject. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GeoSwan's additions.--Aldux 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems well referenced. POV arguments for delete are being abused. POV is a case for re-write, not delete. --SmokeyJoe 06:41, 31 October 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.

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. Since there are no reliable independent sources about this person, WP:BLP applies, as does WP:NOTE. Fram 10:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahed Nasser Mohamed[edit]

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy~~ keep -- I have had some recent interactions with nominator, and have been quite frustrated by the nominators attempts to explain their interpretations of policy.
- I have pointed that WP:VER states that the goal of the wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth".
- I have tried my best to understand the nominator's concern that official DoD documents are not reliable sources about what the DoD has to say about a captive.
- I am not the only one who has pointed out to the nominator that, if we followed their interpretation of {{blp}}, we would not be able to cover any allegations leveled against anyone. I dispute that {{blp}} requires protecting the subjects of articles from the mention of any allegations. I dispute that material that is neutrally written, and cites verifiable, authoritative sources is not a violation of {{blp}}.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that I am POV-pushing. Geo Swan 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan asked me to revisit and clarify my opinion here, and I am happy to do so. I still believe this article should be deleted as it contains little or no information about the subject, only about what has happened to him since he ended up in Guantanam Bay. To Sherurcij: there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia and each of these AFDs will be decided on its own arguments. I also would incorporate Kesh's comment below. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them.DGG (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly not the intention of my argument--some of these people are quite likely dangerous criminals, and some are not. Basic experience with the world suggests that neither accusation nor defense can be implicitly believed. Looking at the article, though, the notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutral writing. DGG (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the case", do you mean the US Gov't case against him, or against the detainees as a group?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 18:00, October 25, 2007

If his case really is notable enough on its own, then yes, an article on his case would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think the general case against the detainees as a group would be more appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:15, October 25, 2007

Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from anything else, the article seems to have copied content and images straight out of another article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain what you are talking about? If you are concerned about a copyright ivolation I assure you your concern is misplaced. If you are concerned that there are passages in this article that also occur in other articles I question whether this is a valid justification for deletion. The articles about the elements in hte periodic table will have common elements too, because those articles, while unique, share aspects in common. Geo Swan 12:26, 27 October 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.

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. Guantanamo detainee, abundant available sources (including Amnesty, which can hardly be described as a primary source in this matter). This does not prejudice the possibility of merging the information to a more comprehensive article about captives held without trial at Guantanamo. It would be odd if we didn't record information of such significance. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab[edit]

Article does not express how/why this person is notable or meets WP:BIO. May possibly be a WP:COATRACK to express protests at Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, on which I make no opinion. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search excluding non-RS sources, and excluding .mil U.S. government sites (as they are Primary sources for this case) doesn't show much. This translated Spanish page is trivial at best; he's mentioned in passing. This Amnesty International reference is trivial at best, he's mentioned only in one sentence out of a significantly larger story. Every other search result (there are a couple of word spam sites in there, and another Wikipedia mirror) are not anything. So, we have no sources there. A Google news search, all dates has 0 hits. We're left with not one WP:RS compliant anything with which to build a biographical article about "Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab". Based on that, and WP:BLP1E, Delete on either/or WP:BLP reasoning or WP:N notability reasoning. We can't make an article about the man--no sources. We can't demonstrate notability per our standards. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lawrence Cohen, and the reasons I have expressed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Gulam_Rasoul. -- But|seriously|folks 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons expressed at the other discussions. "Abdulmalik Abdulwahhab Al-Rahabi v. George W. Bush" is sufficient to justify the article. The article is sourced objectively, with the different views presented. the summaries of evidence are a suitable approach to sourcing. DGG (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper above well founded arguments. Also, I think W is not a soapbox. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Enough independent sources are present to prove notability. The sources appear to be neutral and broad in scope; if the intent of the article was to push a POV, then the author seems to have failed in that goal. With the exception of the caption tagged as Non-neutral, the article looks good to me. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to focus exclusively on an individual to provide useful (Neutral, factual, and verifiable) information about that individual. Neutral, verifiable information exists to document the existance and notability of the subject. In particular, I base my recommendation of Keep on the source (#11, at present) from the United States Department of Justice. The source discusses the court case known as "Abdulmalik Abdulwahhab Al-Rahabi v. George W. Bush", which is sufficient to prove notability. If consensus indicates that an article on this individual is not warranted, or does not meet WP:BIO, then I would recommend that the article and its contents be re-tasked as an article focusing on the court actions and events leading to (and, eventually, stemming from) such litigation. I stress, though, that cleanup (even if extensive enough to properly re-task the article) is not a justification for deletion. The closing admin may see fit to keep the article, with the caveat that it be edited into a more acceptable form - and that would be easily accomplished. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the subject still does not pass the BIO qualifications for notability, and this is still in violation of WP:BLP1E as well. • Lawrence Cohen 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you cite recommends, with emphasis, to "Cover the event, not the person". With all due respect, would not retasking the article to focus on a notable court case involving this individual conform exactly to that policy? Further, if such revision is warranted (as it would appear to be), then deleting the article would be the absolute worst possible step toward accomplishing that task. My recommendation was to retain the article and revise it as you seem to recommend (i.e. per WP:BLP1E, focusing on the event or chain of events, not the individual). Once the article is no longer a biography, the dictates of WP:BLP and WP:BIO do not apply. Though I disagree that the individual is non-notable, I concede that his notability is quite weak. Revising the article in the manner you suggest would retain the acceptable information dealing with court proceedings and legal issues for which the subject is notable, while eliminating BLP concerns - and I believe that option to be preferable to deletion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmalik Abdulwahhab Al-Rahabi v. George W. Bush might be a reasonable move target, should the article be revised to focus on the court proceedings as recommended above. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I did my best to comply with all policies. I think I did an okay job.

I think that the details of what we know about Abdul Wahab's life merit coverage here.

He has, after all, disappeared from the official record.
He has, after all, had a writ of habeas corpus submitted before the US justice system. His habeas corpus has been activiely debated, for years. That merits coverage.
Is there room for improvement in this article? Sure. More about his habeas corpus for one. But having room for improvement is not grounds for deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after close examination, I do not feel that this one article is a WP:COATRACK article (although close to it). Burntsauce 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and smells like an oldWP:COATRACK. --Brewcrewer 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lawrence Cohen's excellent detective work and analysis. Doctorfluffy 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, appears notable due to lawsuit. Well-sourced article. Bearian 19:16, 3 November 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.

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]

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. brew crewer (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.--brew crewer (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]
  - There is one way for a person to be notable according to Wikipedia policies, and that is if he/she "received significant coverage in reliable sources" .
  - Whether you're right or wrong, you can't decide if a person is notable or not. See WP:ILIKEIT.
  - If you think that he's notable because the CSR Tribunal rules weren't applied to him (unsourced), I would suggest first making a CSR Tribunal article. Maybe then, the info here can be merged into that article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment above is an alarming conflation of guidelines and policies.
    - Comment above, IMO, fails to apply wikipedia:use common sense.
    - Comment above suggests that over 10,000 pages of documents be covered in a single article. IMO that is unrealistic. If those 10,000 pages of documents were extremely repetitious they could be covered in a single article. But, having read a substantial portion of those documents I know that each document, each Summary of Evidence memo contains unique aspects. IMO the best way to cover this material is an article for each captive for whom there is robust documentation. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comments above are an alarming conflation of guidelines and policies.
      - Comments above, IMO, fails to apply wikipedia:use common sense. That's why there are notability guidlines. My common sense and your common sense are obviously extremely different.
      - If a substantial number of people don't think that every guantanomo prisoner is notable then ipso facto, it isn't "common sense." For reference of a number of reasonable editors that don't agree with your "common sense" see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahim Yadel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Said Bin Said Zaid, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani.
      - According to WP:NOTE, Wikipedia's notabililty guidline is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The subject of the article has not met that standard. If the reason why it hasn't met that standard is because it is difficult for an independant secondary source to look through 10,000 documents, then it's not WIkipedia's problem. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 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]
- Around 800 people went through Guantanomo Bay. Let's assume that a few hundred were Saudi Arabians. Are all of them notable in Saudi Arabia? I don't think so. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that they are notable in their own country, the notability isn't lasting. It's a classic - Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:14, 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?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. —Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to the main article on the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo. I don't see individual notability, I do see notability for that article, and I see sourced content here that is not in that article. So merge. GRBerry 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, one of the few non-Arabs held in Guantanamo Bay for crimes unrelated to the War on Terror, it's a notable story. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:07, 21 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.

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida facilitator[edit]

This article has been tagged with {{confusing}} and {{context}}. It is written like some sort of internal report, which assumes widespread knowledge of the matter from the reader. Frankly, I do not see any encyclopedic value to this, nor do I see where this is going. The author made his case on the talk page, but I am utterly unconvinced. I suggested that Wikisource would be a better place for this, to no avail. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad, didn't catch that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article with this information likely could be written, but this isn't it. Confusing, non-encyclopedic, not in a proper tone, format issues and doesn't seem to be fixable in its current state. Would require a full rewrite. Even then, might not pass AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nutshell description that leads WP:DEL explicitly states:

Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.

IMO, the opinion expressed above, and several others here, are not compliant with policy, that articles are regarded as needing work should be improved, not deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Also, Al Qaeda is spelt wrong -
Rustam
14:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- That many Guantanamo captives are accused of being "al Qaida facilitators" or of having known "al Qaida facilitators" is well documents, from reliable sources. Captives had their continued detention justified by this allegation. IMO that makes this term notable.
- Respondent is incorrect that "Al Qaeda is spelled wrong". There are different conventions on how to transliterate Arabic. There is no universally accepted standard. The DoD transliteration scheme is to transliterate it as "al Qaida". Every time the DOD uses the phrase they always write it as "al Qaida facilitator". I think it would be a mistake to correct the phrase, from the way it is written by the DoD. Even if this was a good idea, it is, IMO a very weak justification to delete this article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's too confusing and it has no senseOlliyeah (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an encyclopedia article now, and I don't think it could be. How do you distinguish an "al-Qaeda facilitator" from just a member of al-Qaeda? I don't think anyone would seriously insist on this as a meaningful distinction? Superm401 - Talk 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respondent asks: "How do you distinguish an 'al-Qaeda facilitator' from just a member of al Qaeda?"
- Respondent questions whehter anyone would seriously insist that this was a meaningful distinction.
- Respondent is overlooking that Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts (1) make exactly this distinction; and (2) in effect insisted it was a serious distinction. The captives named "al Qaida facilitators" had also frequently been distinguished as being "members of al Qaida". Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, particularly Superm401 and Pharmboy. I could argue for a (brief) article on this topic if a notable individual affiliated with Al-Qaeda was described as a "facilitator" for the group. An article would be useful in describing the term and why it exists as any sort of distinction between that and other types of Al-Qaeda member. Terrorist itself redirects to Terrorism, so an article on a particular type of terrorist (the facilitator) doesn't seem appropriate, unless context and sources would indicate otherwise. But, I agree - if there's an article in here somewhere, this isn't it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the allegations against Abu Faraj Al Libi describe him as an "al Qaida facilitator". He is one of the 14 "high value detainees" who President Bush announced would be transferred from custody in the CIA's black sites to military custody in Guantanamo on September 6 2006. Is that notable enough for you?
- We cover topics that are, necessarily, incompletely covered. Back before Fermat's last theorem was solved, or the four color theorem was solved, we would still have had articles about them. It may be that none of the references currently available to us contain an explanation as to what Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts actually meant by this term. Just like Fermat's last theorem this topic worth covering. Maybe some of the references will contain an explanation as to what JTF-GTMO analysts meant. How could the article exist, without containing an explanation, if that explanation existed? Because checking all the references is hard work, and they haven't all been checked yet. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is notable, because it's put to serious use. At first glance the article appears to be of sufficient quality. Perhaps it was improved since the above voted delete? Mathiastck (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with the suggestion: contain usable information, but yes, in a confusing way. i think the best is to merge the uable content with the suggested article, them delete this. its talkpage also seems to be a battlefield --Drhlajos (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the person who put Confusing and Context on the article in the first place. I did not mean this to be a prelude to deletion. I would have used Prod if that is what I intended. I just wanted the article to be easier to understand. Clearly there is a notable subject here and, while work is needed to make the article more useful, it should be kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. My thought is that we should not list the specific detainees in the article. After all, they have never been charged with, or convicted of, being Al Qaida facilitators. I think that the detainees should be listed in a separate article. What we need in this article is an explanation of what various people mean by the phrase "Al Qaida facilitator". --DanielRigal (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- I started this article. changed to move see below.
- Several of the opinions stated here are counter to the WP:DEL.
- The concept of an "al Qaida facilitator" is an important one, because allegations that individuals are an al Qaida facilitator, or know an al Qaida facilitator, has been used to justify their continued extrajudicial detention.
- I am concerned because it seems to me that nominator's nomination does not in the tradition of good-faith nominations. Note: I responded, at length, to nominators concerns on Talk:Al Qaida facilitator. Rather than honor the wikipedia's tradition of reasoned discussion, nominator chose to make this nomination.
- Nominator didn't show the usual courtesy of giving me a heads-up of this nomination -- also not in the tradition of good faith nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the concept may be a notable one, and state as such in my comment above. However, a discussion of the concept of an Al Qaida Facilitator is different from a list of detainees who have been so described. There isn't anything in the article that tells me what a facilitator actually is, especially in relation to non-terrorist facilitators (i.e. of discussions or debates), or other non-facilitator members of Al Qaida. If there is a source that differentiates between facilitators and non facilitators for Al Qaida, then the background already in the article could serve to document official uses of the term, bolstering the notability that the independent source provided. However, the article as-is would work better as information about the detainees themselves, as opposed to their position in the organization. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add that, if the only distinction between members of Al Qaida and Al Qaida Facilitators is that the Department of Defense has designated some detainees as facilitators, then this term might be better suited as a subsection of the article on Al Qaida itself. Otherwise, the article would boil down to the following text: "An Al Qaida Facilitator is a member of Al Qaida who has been described as a facilitator by the United States Department of Defense." We need more information on the term itself, not necessarily on those for whom the term has been used. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments made here by Geo Swan, let me just point out, that if the concept of Al-Qaida facilitator is a notable one, how come the article makes no attempt to explain what one means by Al-Qaida facilitator? How come the article does not even attempt to explain the concept? What is it that makes an Al-Qaida facilitator different than another Al-Qaida member? And how is an al-Qaida facilitator any more notable than, say, a Republican Party facilitator, so that we need a separate article on Al-Qaida facilitators? The article should focus on these two questions. I probably would not have nominated for deletion an article that only tells this difference and mentions no names. Also, the so-called ISN number of each Guantanamo detainee liste is a detail whose removal would actually improve the quality of the article. As far as I can tell, the article on George W. Bush makes no mention of his social security number. What we want is encyclopedia articles intended for people who want basic knowledge about a topic. What we have now is an intelligence report that only a CIA operative would find interesting. I do not think there is anything worth saving as part of an encyclopedia. Ultraexactzz gave the right guidelines on how to start over with this article. And note: start over, not expand. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO nominstator's detailed content questions belonged on the article's talk page. Not in {{afd}}
Nominator asks for an explanation of how an "al Qaida facilitator" differs from an ordinary "al Qaida" member. From the context one might guess that "al Qaida facilitator" is a synonym for "al Qaida cell leader". Some of the documents will refer to a single individual by both terms. One might guess that JTF-GTMO authors thought the two terms were interchangeable. However, if one of us, the nominator, or myself, or one of the rest of you, were to insert that conclusion in the article that would be a violation of the wikipedia's policy on "no original research".
Nominator asks why being accused of being an "al Qaida facilitator" is any more noteworthy than accusing someone of being a "Republican Party facilitator". Well, no one is holding anyone for years, without offering them a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations that triggered their detention -- because they are suspected of being members of the Republican Party, of facilitators for the Republican Party.
Nominator criticizes the article for its use of the captives ID numbers.
As I mentioned above, I strongly believe this kind of detailed criticism of an article's content really belongs on the article's talk page.
Why include the ID numbers? Simple. The entries in the list are ambigous without them. Arabic names, and Afghan names are not like the names we are familiar with in the English speaking world. After centuries of international commerce, international conquest, international colonization, English speaking phone books are full of surnames from all over the world. English-speaking people have a rich name-space for surnames. Relatively few individuals have names like John Smith, where they can be confused with their homonyms. This is not so with the Guantanamo captives. About twenty percent of the names of the captives are homonyms. Without using the ID numbers there would be constant confusion over who was being referred to.
Nominator mocks this article writing: "What we have now is an intelligence report that only a CIA operative would find interesting." -- It seems to me this concern is just an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I know, for a certain fact that the wikipedia's articles on war on terror topics are read and appreciated. I've had people reader's write me emails telling me they appreciated articles like this one and found them useful.
There are plenty of topics that I find uninteresting that the wikipedia covers. But I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of those topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I request a relisting because nominator lapse from the normal courtesy of informing the article creator has circumvented the deletion sorting being put to use. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this appears to be a classic example of what WP:NEO calls "neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources", and which "are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." <eleland/talkedits> 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about that? It seems to me that the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the CSR Tribunals and the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the annual review boards are, I believe, classic examples of secondary sources. They are compilations of primary sources, like interrogation logs, and intelligence analyst's position papers. Geo Swan (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that the term "Al-Qaida facilitator" has not itself been the subject of any serious treatment. There's a difference between using a term and actually covering it nontrivially. In addition, it's all coming from the same source, one which no rational person would trust to be objective on this topic. <eleland/talkedits> 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not written from a neutral point-of-view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Travis ^talk 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a question from the author, I’ll expand on this. Because this article singles out one specific class of detainee and doesn’t address what an Al Qaida facilitator is, I can see no other purpose for this article than to attract attention to these people. —Travis ^talk 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just isn't encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Al Qaida facilitators or Category:Al Qaida facilitator (i.e. create category, then add to all captives' articles). As an article, this should but doesn't provide a definition of the subject. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IAW WP:DEL (namely the "nutshell" at the beginning of WP:DEL; mentioned above already); I can also see some information here being moved to List of Al Qaida facilitators and this page being expanded to include what a facilitator actually is (a simple stub article used for clarification). I agree this article needs work, but it doesn't meet the criteria for outright deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify if not enough information is present for an article a wiktionary entry would be applicable instead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be easier to think about things like WP:N if the article could start by defining what an "Al Qaida facilitator" is (or what the DoD means by the term, anyway). That's pretty basic WP:LEAD stuff, and also is pretty much the difference between whether this is indiscriminate info or something which could turn into some kind of informative article. The term does seem to be used enough in US military and white house circles that I could imagine an article, but what we have here is pretty far from what we'd want. (also note the existence of Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators for whatever it is worth). Kingdon (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking it means, "we don't have any real evidence about this person, but he knew a guy who knew a guy who's al-Qaeda, so he'd better learn to love his stylish orange jumpsuit." <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move -- After reading the comments above, and thinking about them, I am changing my suggested action -- from keep to move to something like List of alleged al Qaida officials].
- Many of the objections above are that the article doesn't define how an alleged "al Qaida facilitator" differs from a garden variety alleged al qaida member.
- The definition(s) that lie at the root of the invention and use of this term may not have been made public.
- As Eleland suggested above, this term may be used by junior analysts who merely heard the term, and used it without any acquaintance with the definition(s).
- Approximately a third of the captives in Guantanamo were accused of being members of the Taliban.
- Approximately half of the captives in Guantanamo weren't accused of being members of either the Taliban or al Qaida. (I know that adds up to more than 100%. Some captives were accused of being member of BOTH groups.)
- Of that third -- approximately 170 men -- a minor, but significant fraction were labeled as some sort of al Qaida official. "Al Qaida facilitator" was just one of those labels. Other labels included: "Al Qaida recruiter", "Al Qaida lieutenant", "al Qaida financiers", "al Qaida cell leader", "senior al Qaida operatives.
- Bearing in mind the comments above I think all these labels could be described as "officials". I think the distinction made between the garden variety captives and those singled out merits coverage, without regard to whether we know the definition of the alleged duties of those singled out.
- I'd welcome alternatives to "officials", or "officers". Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forgive me if this sounds like nitpicking, but your style of commenting makes the reading of this discussion more difficult and confusing than it needs to be. Using a bullet point for each and every statement is unnecessary and, frankly, distracting. AfD discussions normally have bullets only for major points, i.e. “Delete,” “Keep,” “Comment,” etc., so your extra bullets only serve to make your comments more difficult to follow and understand. Respectfully, —Travis ^talk 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a Wikisource administrator, I wish to make it clear that this is not the purpose of Wikisource and would not be allowed to be transwikied. As such, I vote "Keep", and remind future voters that Transwiki is not an option. If the information is to be kept anywhere, it must be on WP. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:30, 13 January 2008 (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.

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. Notability is not inherited, and the relevant facts about the incident are covered at Pul-e-Charkhi prison. However, I would like to extend my condolences to Colonel Harrison's son and other family members on behalf of the Wikipedia community. GlassCobra 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Harrison Jr.[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial and while very sad neither of these soldier are especially noteworthy. I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason

Delete: completely agree per nom. Very sad for both, but no assertion of notability in either article. Mh29255 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- I didn't start these articles to serve as "memorials". These two men are at the nexus of a controversy -- how the captives America apprehends in its global war on terror should be detained.
- I started the article about Wilberto Sabalu first, and Harrison second. Even if Harrison hadn't been killed under these highly notable circumstances, even if their deaths hadn't lead to a delay in opening the American wing of the Pul-e-Charki prison, he would merit coverage. Harrison was the the director of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) Detention Capability Directorate. That is a significant post. Think Abu Ghraib. Think how much trouble there has been in training soldiers who can be relied on to take up the burden of defending Iraq. Well, Afghanistan faces the same problem, and Harrison, and to a lesser extent Sabalu, played noteworthy roles in the training effort.
- Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan and the Detention Capability Directorate are currently red-links. But they shouldn't be. They too are important organizations that, IMO, merit their own articles. And, IMO, those articles should link to these two articles. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, do you think it would make sense to have an article about the event, not the people? Jon513 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and troubling WP:COATRACK assertions above by Geo Swan. Harrison was awarded the Bronze Star, which while a respected award, is not a top military medal. There is no assertion of notability in their actions other than as victims. Cover the incident in Pul-e-Charki prison in more detail if need be. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I like the gesture made with the page. Col. Harrison is my father. Only thing I am noticing is that people are saying somethings that I'd like to clear up. The prison in Afghanistan was Afghani run and the American forces there are responsible for helping modernize the prison and train the Afghani guard so that prisoners being held can be transfered there. My father and the MSGT. were killed leaving the prison by an Afghani soldier who was later found to be an insurgent. Other than that, its a nice gesture and I appreciate it.
Delete Not everyone involved in a notable event is notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad you found it respectful. As you can read from some of the other comments here, articles aren't supposed to serve simply as memorials here. I think your dad merits coverage here for the totality of career. Perhaps you could help us locate online references to notable events from earlier in his career? Web searches turn up so many references to memorials that they drown out the earlier references.
- Some of the memorials, from officers he worked under, said your dad was an innovator, without being specific about particular innovations. If you know of particular innovations, that were written about, that would be helpful. (I realize your dad could have made important innovations, that weren't publicized.)
- Do you recall what role your dad played during the first Gulf War? Grenada? Panama? If your family has a scrapbook of press-clippings it doesn't matter if the clippings are of articles that are not online. Wikipedia references are considered reliable sources so long as a determined reader could find a paper copy, through the name of the publication, and the date of publication. If a wikipedia administrator concludes this article doesn't meet the criteria for conclusion, and you come across earlier references to your dad's career, don't hesitate to contact me.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepThere are a lot of non notable things that are posted on wikipedia. I think that as long as someone is willing to maintain it then it should be allowed up.
- I do remember somethings and have gone in and edited some of the information that was incorrect, namely my dad's birthdate. I would like to help add information about his career to add to the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.185.50 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete but incorporate the key information in an article on the incident. We accept the Medal of Honor as a sufficient distinction for WP notability, but not lesser awards. NOT MEMORIAL. DGG (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (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.

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 --Step hen 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey D. Gordon[edit]

Delete - A military spokesman is not notable in his own right and has not independently contributed to the events related to the Guantanamo Bay proceedings. The article does not satisfy WP:NOT. There of course are independent articles mentioning him, but that is expected due to his position - not due to his contributions to the subject at hand. BWH76 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a military spokesman is a diplomat for the armed forces. He is in charge of the public affairs for that arena, has been called the camp's top Washington spin doctor, the Pentagon spokesman on Guantánamo, &c. I'm not saying those claims are true, but it is evidence of his notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gordon has played a significant and creative role in the USA's war on terror. ~~He has been called on to testify before the United States Congress on the controversial claim that dozens of Guantanamo captives.~~ No offense, but I believe it is a fallacy to to think that a public affairs officer's role can be performed by rote. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the position is not "performed by rote", but there is no claim that he has (or is) contributing to the Guantanamo proceedings other than speaking to the press. Additionally, although some articles allude to his importance as Sherurcij states, others simply refer to him as "a" spokesman for the Pentagon (New York Times, Washington Post). Although this may be a question of semantics, it does not detract from my belief that a spokesman for the military is not notable unless he has independently done something of note (as opposed to speaking about something of note as his or her job description demands).BWH76 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would be useful to anyone doing a project on this sort of thing. Definetly keep. -- Carerra^{"I help newcomers!} 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, this is a notable military spokesman and our biographical guidelines have been satisfied. RFerreira (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that there may be a fundamental misunderstanding as to the role of a military spokesman (or more properly, a Public Affairs Officer); a position which dozens currently hold. As opposed to perhaps a communications director or a Press Secretary (for example, in the White House), a military spokesman has no role in making policy decisions. He or she communicates the decisions and actions of others to the press - a PAO does not participate nor contribute to these actions. Asserting that a military spokesman is "a diplomat for the armed forces" is only true in the most general sense; it is not true in practice as he or she is not engaged in diplomacy )or the "the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states" as defined in Wikipedia. Although Gordon's interaction with the press is interesting, it is unencyclopedic, and any mention of Gordon may be merged to other articles describing the Guantanamo Bay proceedings.BWH76 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO#Basic criteria - "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." His name appears in tons of independant reliable sources, but they are only quoting him. There's no articles to be found where he is the subject of the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Question' : I cannot find any sources that support Geo Swan's claim that Gordon was called to testify in Congress relating to the Guantanamo Bay issue (nor for any other reason). Is there a source for that? Comment - (updated) Gordon did not testify in Congress on any issue, much less the Guantanamo issue for which the article claims notability. After about 30 minutes of research, I can't find anything at all that supports the claim that he has done so. BWH76 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BWH76 is correct. I did my own check. I couldn't find references either. Although I found multiple references to Joseph Benkert's May 9 2007 testimony before Congress, with "two other officials", that quoted Gordon on that issue in the next sentence, or the next paragraph. I think now I mis-read those articles. They did not establish Gordon was one of the other officials. I now doubt he was one of the other officials. My apologies to anyone for whom this was the deciding factor in the opinion they expressed here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationales for retention provided in the comments above. John254 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan and others, I believe this suits our biographical guidelines just fine. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —BWH76 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (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.

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, allowing redirect. The keep !votes adequately established that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. Wikipedia should not be the first place to write notional biographies of living individuals, but luckily that is not what was happening here since the article is largely comprised of minor details of his detention. Summary: Gitmo is notable, the fact of a number of people being detained at gitmo is notable, the things that go on at gitmo are said by many (and with some justification) to be an outrage to human decency, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam[edit]

You have to be crazy to say that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unnotable. That being said, it does not mean that every prisoner that was or is held at Guantanamo Bay is notable. There has been over 700 detainess held at one point on Guantanomo Bay. Should there be an article on each prisoner? Of course not. Except, of course, if there's substantial coverage about the person that WP:BIO requires. This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage on this specific person. The refs provided are just a bunch of Army files were he is listed as a prisoner.

The creator of this article Geo Swan (talk · contribs) continuously creates these articles even after similar articles go through afd with the vast majority of them ending up as "no concensus", "redirect", or "delete". Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody told me that posting above others with lines is the new the afd discussion guidline, but I will accordingly get in style. The creator of the article believes that the continuous repetition (and putting them in boxes) in this discussion of incorrect Wikipedia notability guidelines will validate the guidelines. Some of us have responded at each turn, but as our fingers hurt, and we have real-world issues, there might not be a response at each turn pointing out again and again the misconceptopns. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this nomination contains a number of misconceptions. I am addressing these misconceptions up here at the top, several days into the discussion.

I believe the nominator is mistaken to conflate previously closed {{afd}} that were closed as "no consensus" with {{afd}} that were closed as "delete". Unless there has been a recent policy change "no consensus" defaults to keep.
The nominator forgot to list similar {{afd}} which were closed as "keep": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
The nominator initially seened to be asserting that WP:BIO requires "substantial media coverage". It recommends "substantial coverage" -- and says nothing about whether it should be media coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several participants have questioned how Guantanamo captives were not really different from ordinary convicted felons. I believe this is a serious misconception, which I have addressed at length. Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only because this is the first time I've seen evidence that Usama apparently runs a law school. (edit: In all seriousness, keep because we have an obligation not unlike Snopes.com that when somebody is labelled "the worst of the worst" and faced with punishment that goes beyond what can be prescribed under the legal code...we have a responsibility to gather and present the facts of the case and provide context. I agree the article is poorly-written and could use some help, but deletion is not the answer.)Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Sherurcij (talk · contribs) in clear violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments has added to his rationale of his !vote after I responded to him. I requested that he not do that (so that I don't look stupid in responding nonsensically), but he chose to ignore me, and reinserted his additions above my response. So please take note when reading the give and take below. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "edit" to my addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with making you look stupid (though I think you claiming that I'm in "clear violation" of a suggested guideline is doing a fine job) - it has to do with me clarifying my position. Let it go. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT. Please give relevant reasons for the non-deletion of the article. I don't know where you are getting your info about law school (is it a joke?).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article before proposing it for deletion next time. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator asked where Sherurcij got the info about attending Osama bin Laden's law school? One of the allegations Ahmed Adnan Muhammed Ajam faced was

The detainee stayed at a legal college in Kandahar owned by Usama bin Laden.

Anyone can find that allegation in the article and on page 84 of this source, and on page 93 of this source.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is merely a confusion of the issues. Whether he attended law school (as Sherurcij originally claimed) or just regular college (as now claimed) and whether it is mentioned somewhere in the hundred page complaints or it isn't, is immaterial. Osama having a school is no way connected to the notability of this subject. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read what your correspondents wrote, before you reply. Please reply to what your correspondents actually wrote.

Three memos that summarized the allegations against Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam have been published. They were drafted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each of these memos was published together with memos against other captives in three separate pdf files that are each about one hundred pages long. But the 2004 memo is one page long, and the 2005 and 2006 memos are just two pages long. These memos aren't "somewhere" in one hundred pages of complaints, as asserted above. The article's references clearly specify which page(s) within the pdfs the memos are found on. No one is asking readers to read articles random articles they may not be interested in. But I think we are entitled to have those who nominate or comment on articles that have been nominated for discussion to read them with sufficient care that they don't make unsupportable claims about what those article contain.

If it weren't a red herring, I might read it more carefully. But his school attendance has no connection to his notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As DGG pointed out about a similar article: "The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern." I can't see any Guantanamo Bay detainees being non-notable. The arrticles may have other failings, but I don't think they should be deleted on these grounds. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides for the due process of its prisoners is a matter of international concern, and that is why the detention camp is notable. The issue here is wheter each and every prisoner is notable or not. And the question that has to be answered it whether there's substantial coverage of the subject of the bio. I also think that that the issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are a matter of international concern but that has nothing to do with each prisoner. This article is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." however this article is focused (well or badly) completely on its subject. It doesn't discuss Guantanamo Bay in general. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject" no matter how much it focuses on its subject. The creator, in previos afd's, repeatedly states that the importance of the lack of due process that Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides to prisoners is the reason for the non-deletion of the article. It doesn't get anymore WP:COATRACK then that. Indeed, your reason for non-deletion pretty much says the same. There is a confusion with an important issue and people that are pawns in an important issue. The former is notable, not the latter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's assertions about WP:BIO misquote the guideline. Nomination states: "...This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage..." -- the nomination claims WP:BIO requires "substantial coverage". What WP:BIO actually says is:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The WP:BIO guideline says nothing about a requirement for "substantial media coverage". I urge anyone who thinks it does to go back and re-read it for themselves.

Some challengers have stated that the OARDEC documents such as those this article uses are unsatisfactory sources, because they are merely "primary sources", not "secondary sources". I took a closer look at the definitions, and it seemed to me these sources are secondary sources. These documents were drafted from multiple sources, by an independent agency. So I posted queries on WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"? I encourage anyone who doubts the sources comply with policy and WP:BIO to take a look at those discussion.

Note: I politely asked the nominator to review those discussion back on March 7 2008 -- when they initially {{prod}}ded this article. I am very sorry that I have to report that the nominator proved unwilling or unable to offer any kind of reply whatsoever. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This box sits right on top of the WP:BIO page:

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.

(emphasis added) significant (in other words "substantial", but significant is actually a higher standard) coverage is actually the most important factor of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Noone here is arguing about the reliability of the sources, that's merely a confusion of the issues. There is one issue - and one issue only - is this person notable or not. Nothing so far has shown that he has any notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please -- are you now acknowledging that the WP:BIO guideline does not, after all, require that the significant coverage, or substantial coverage, be from a media source? Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The memos were independently drafted, by a separate agency from the task force authorized to detain and interrogate the captives. The authors of these memos reviewed source documents from the FBI, from the CIA, from the USA's Criminal Investigation Task Force for Afghanistan, from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secrectary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, and from foreign intelligence services. After reviewing these documents the OARDEC authors reached conclusions, and listed justifications for his continued detention. I would like someone to explain why this should not be regarded as significant coverage, or substantial coverage.

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, in particular, stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side. I would like someone to explain why this is not significant. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification given -- Whether goverment documents are reliable sources or not (I don't see how they are, the US goverment isn't considered reliable) is a non-issue here. If not one media outlet (and there are plenty that are riled up about the whole Guantanamo Bay process) has decided to write an article about him then its impossible to say that he has recieved significant coverage required by WP:BIO.

If you are going to keep asserting that the WP:BIO guideline requires media coverage then please cite the specific passage that states this. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted that WP:BIO guideline requires media coverage (although I can't imagine that it doesn't). I stated that I can't see how an argument can be made that a person has recieved significant coverage required by WP:BIO when not one media outlet had even mentioned him in passing!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate nominator, or anyone else, offering an explanation as to why the OARDEC memos do not fulfill the "significant" recommendation of the WP:BIO guideline. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why it "is not significant" that Ajam "stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side." I don't think that this is significant in itself without further evidence that it is. In particular, these accusations have not been established as being either considerably more serious, or considerably less serious, than the accusations against the hundreds of other detainees who are or who have been held at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that the body assigned to review the continued detention of Ajam generated a memo about him, as they did for numerous other detainees, does not appear to be "significant coverage" of his case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article cites only primary sources, with no secondary sources to establish news coverage of this individual. Almost all Google hits for him are from Wikipedia itself, and there are no Google News or Google News Archive hits I could find. The fact that he is held at the notable Guantanamo Bay detention camp does not establish that he himself is notable per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments above. Please see discussions at [25],[26]. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reviewed those discussions and commented above and on my user talk page per your request. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't established, toss his name on a list article if you want but not deserving of of his own article. -Jahnx (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, and that's all that counts. If he has received no individual media attention (most likely because they also have no other information), Wikipedia shouldn't have an individual article either. --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see above. I believe your comment is based on a misinterprtation of what WP:BIO states. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for the record, my comment is not based on any misinterpretation. Reading the guideline by the letter, as you do, coverage can of course mean anything, including those military documents. But if Wikipedia is the only place in all the web as well as all printed media (that we know about) talking about this person, then it's evident how someone can interpret that as no significant coverage outside Wikipedia, and is not a misinterpretation. --Minimaki (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO. Why give the detainees more coverage than they deserve? ArcAngel (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "merge" ? Merge into what? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A closer look at the link provided reveals that, to the contrary, it is a basis for deletion. They are merely lists of detainees, and are a far cry from substantial coverage that is required by WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As above the preceding comment mischaracterizes what the WP:BIO guideline recommends. Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. Significant coverage is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by Keep/merge is that the article should not be deleted, which is the point of this discussion. I have no strong opinion on how the various prisoners are presented here but, even if they were to be gathered together in some list or compilation, this article would still be useful as a redirect since the name is an obvious basis for a search. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, but please explain how the link that you provided establishes that he's "Evidently notable". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The above ghits link does not establish notability as each hit is in fact simply a name on the list ( the subject of the article only appears on lists of prisoners). In other words, there is no independent coverage where this person is the subject of the article. Fails WP:BIO and I also see merit in Brewcrewer's argument for WP:COAT. BWH76 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't paper and has no size constraints WP:NOT#PAPER. So all detainees (even those committing shockingly evil acts) can and are notable, even as individuals. In the same way, I would argue that everyone on Schindler's list is notable on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:NOT#PAPER is a basis for the non-deletion is a misapplication of Wikipedia policy. According to your logic, what the point of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion?
Another thing that you are confusing is that the basis for the deletion is that they are bad people. That is flat-out wrong. To the contrary, those that "committed shockingly evil acts" have a better basis for inclusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, unless specifically stated otherwise, the scope of my arguments nartually limit themselves to the debate at hand. With that in mind, a few hundred detainees each with their own article could easily overwhelm paper-based encyclopedia, but that's not a problem with an electronic-based one.
Second, nitpicking aside, I wish you God speed in fighting the good fight of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Thank you for all that folks like yourself do.
Third, my blessing of your actions in general should in no way be taken as an indication that I have retracted my assertion to OPPOSE you upon this specific nomination or the rationale provided. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've just drastically re-written the lead information on this detainee, at this point. I feel this improves the article and helps establish his notability. I believe that if the original author also uploads the transcripts for the subject's ARB and CSRT proceedings to s:Wikisource:Guantanamo, then this will make it a clear-cut "keep" case, rather than the debated status it currently has. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has not been drastically rewritten. It merely has gotten some background information. The problem with the article - unestablished notability - has yet to be rectified. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of 645 separate articles about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (the whole list is at Category: People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp). Unless one operates under the assumption that all prisoners at Guantanamo (or for that matter, at the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, or at a Chinese camp for political prisoners) are inherently notable, then I don't see that Ajam is more notable than any other person who is incarcerated. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I think the argument that Guantanamo captives are just like other prisoners is based on misconceptions. I have had dialogs on this, and saved one here Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.

Briefly, I agree, your ordinary Supermax convict would not merit coverage on the wikipedia. But Charles Manson, if he were held there, would. The USA has a justice system that, like those of most other nations, is well-understood, predictable. Convicts had trials. Evidence was gathered, witnesses testified, and were cross examined. If the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced, then we assume he was guilty, will be treated consistently and fairly, and will be released on schedule, unless he commits more crimes while in detention.

While, I agree your ordinary Supermax convict doesn't merit coverage, I would argue that any Supermax convict for whom there are meaningful references to non-trivial claims he or she was wrongfully convicted would merit coverage.

Guantanamo captives aren't convicts. Less than twenty of them have even been charged with crimes. I think that is an important difference.

Guantanamo captives aren't like ordinary convicts -- they are much more like those for whom there is a controversy over whether they were wrongfully convicted -- except, of course, they were never convicts.

WRT to your chinese political prisoners -- no, I would not argue for having a separate article for every political prisoner whose name becomes public. But when there are meaningful reliable sources that back up the claim that a prisoner, in China, Iran, or any other country, is a political prisoner, not a felon convicted of a criminal offense, then I would support having an article written about him or her. I'd insist that the article contain a non-trivial amount of information, be written from a neutral point of view, and cite reliable, verifiable sources. If you have a concern with that, could you please be specific about which part concerns you?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for distinguishing Guantanomo Bay detainees and other prisoners don't make or break Wikipedia notability policy. There must be significant coverage, and after all these kilobytes of discussion there has yet to be provided one media source that discusses this person. The long talk of the lack of Due Process provided to these prisoners is further proof that the article was meant to be a coatrack. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has mispoke in referring to a "Wikipedia notability policy". Like WP:BIO it is a guideline. And it says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

I invite the nominator, or anyone else, to cite a passage from the article that they think represents original research.

The memos the article uses as references do refer to Ajam, directly, in detail. They refer to him by name, in fact.

If we had a source, maybe a Syrian newspaper, that asserted that all the remaining Syrian captives in Guantanamo were being tortured, it would require original research, interpretation, to insert the conclusion that this meant Ajam had been tortured.

I think the phrase: "...and no original research is needed to extract the content..." prohibits inserting that kind of conclusion in the article. And I don't believe the article makes any such interpolation.

If, for the sake of argument, the article did contain that kind of interpretation, the solution would be to remove or rewrite the offending passage, not to delete the entire article. (FWIW this is just an example. I have not come across any sources that suggest Ajam was tortured.) Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument proposing "significant coverage" to mean lack of original research doesn't require a response.

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT WP:COATRACK -- Nominator keeps referring to Coatrack. So I re-acquainted myself with this essay. It describes seven types of Typical coatracks. If this suggestion is going to be repeated I would like those repeating it to state which type(s) they think it is an instance of. It seems to me that this article is not an instance of any of those types.

And, if, for the sake of argument, this article did contain passages that did not comply with the advice in this essay, it has a section entitled: What to do about coatracks. The advice in this essay is essentially the same as that in Wikipedia:Notability -- remove or rewrite the troublesome passage. The essay specifically reserves article deletion only for "...extreme cases, when the nominal subject is barely notable and there is little chance the article can be salvaged." Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been asked to review the counterarguments and to comment. In addition, I've looked at the declassified Combatant Status Review Board site, which is the source for the arguments for detaining or releasing a particular prisoner and is listed on www.dod.mil/pubs. And while I think that articles about the Guantanamo Bay detainees in general should be fully supported, I don't see that each individual detainee merits a separate article. It's unprecedented that there would be an internet site that would have detailed information about each individual imprisoned at a particular facility, and it comes about in this case because of American federal court orders directing the American Department of Defense to make that information available. It's unprecedented also that Wikipedia would have articles about each person who has been imprisoned in a particular facility. There are very few groups where each individual is considered inherently notable. Wikipedia has a policy providing for a nation's legislators, for instance, to each merit their own article. Wikipedia has such a policy for individual athletes playing in a particular sports league. If there is a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees, then that takes precedence over our own personal preferences. However, I don't think that there's a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees. And judging Ajam as being notable in the sense of being mentioned specifically as an example of the plight of detainees held without trial, or as a significant participant in the activities of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, my opinion is that he is not notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. There is no significant coverage of this individual in his own right in reliable secondary sources. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are reports about an individual then he is notable. And yes i do think there is likely to be individual sourcing about every one of them in their native country and language, and it is merely outr limitation of having difficulty in finding them. DGG (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that every British or British-resident prisoner has been mentioned in British media, so it's reasonable to assume the same of all the others in relation to their national media. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of the five pillars): The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original). All the reasons (i.e. original research) set forth here do not avail if not one media source on him can be found. There's plenty of articles here with Syrian-language media sources, and this person shouldn't be treated any differently then any other person that isn't from a non-english speaking country. Unless everyone from non-english speaking countries is assumed notable without any sources. I doubt it. But now that we are on the subject, I would like to point out that there's a few good reasons why there's no Syrian media sources on this prisoner. 1- Unlike in democracies, its no big deal if someone is locked up without having recieved (what is considered) the normal due process. If he were to be treated like a regular US citizen - then the Syrian media might report it. 2- The Syrian secular goverment-run media might not want its citizens to know about any Al-Queda members in its country. But all theories aside, everyone - angel or terrorist - must have significant reliable sources that establish his/her notability if they are to be included in this encyclopedia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official language of Syria is Arabic. (Brewcrewer: when you referred to "Syrian-language media" were you referring to Syriac or something?) I always check local language sources when I put up an article for deletion. If you don't know how to do this, can we ask an Arabic speaker to do a Google check for us? --Kleinzach (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply transliterating his name into Arabic (he has a highly unusual name, so I also tried entries that didn't mention the Muhammad, etc) I would estimate there's somewhere between 5-50 websites that mention him, including news media, government (.sy, nearly all hits are Syrian, solidifying the assumption we're talking about the same person) and forums. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep pr Kleinzach and Geo Swan Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD seems to me to be going in a rather unique direction. The main question is whether there are or are not multiple verifiable sources to establish this individual's notability. Assuming that there must be sources is an example of WP:ILIKEIT. Assuming that web hits of a simple transliteration of this name must be about this subject (without confirmation of this fact) is not an acceptable means to justify this individual's notability. What does remain is that the subject of this article does not have multiple independent sources that focus specifically upon him. His name is only listed along with dozens of other internees in the media and he appears in the OARDEC reports that were done by the US government. OARDEC is an American Department of Defence organization (under the control of the Navy) that has the sole purpose of reviewing each internee's case/status! There are literally hundreds of OARDEC reports on detainees - it would be similar to say (to stick with the Supermax comparison) that a Supermax-commissioned report on a possible parolee at Supermax would constitute notability. This just does not satisfy WP:BIO, independent reliable sources, nor our notability requirements. BWH76 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not be making assumptions - much better to get the facts straight. Can you clarify whether or not you have checked Arabic sources? Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when a reader of the article will ask "Why is Wikipedia the only place giving individual attention to this person?" you will also answer "Oh, but we do not know that for sure, transliterating his name into Arabic gives 5-50 web search results in google, and while we won't provide a reference as we usually do with our articles, please feel free to check those yourself, maybe someone else wrote about him." Point being, in AfDs, sources have to be found for the article to be kept, not the other way around. The speculations about possible sources are helpful as a means to actually check them - but unless/until someone does that, there should not be an article. --Minimaki (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but let's not change what Sherurcij wrote. He/she did not refer to "5-50 web search results in google" (to quote what you have written above) - but to "5-50 websites" . --Kleinzach (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I just assumed that's how they were found. What I basically tried to say is that, as long as there are only speculations about possible Arabic websites, we don't need proof that they are only speculations. Instead, it would be very easy to show that they are not, by just providing cite-able links to some of them. --Minimaki (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, were busy deciphering what Sherurcij meant, but where are the websites??--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- I seem to have neglected to explicitly state keep. As I stated above, IMO, nominator, and several contributors who voiced delete opinions have advanced arguments based on misconceptions.

As per the discussion in WP:RS/Noticeboard the references this article uses are secondary sources, the references are fulfill all the requirements of the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I addressed the nominator's concern that media coverage was required.

I addressed the nominator's concern that "significant coverage" was required. The article meets all the requirements in the passage that defines "significant coverage". The memos are about him, and they do not require interpretation to verify that they are about him.

I addressed the misconception that Guantanamo captives are just like mundane convicted felons.

Disclaimer -- as the nominator has pointed out in multiple places, I started this article. But, contrary to nominators many suggestions, my contributions have completely complied with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion you started on secondary sources had no responses. The discussion as to whether US military reports constitute independent reliable sources that you began appears to have the consensus that OARDEC files do not constitute independent, reliable sources. In other words, the main reasons that this article has been brought to AfD have not been addressed aside from opinions as per WP:ILIKEIT. We're running around in circles on this AfD, but the article still does not meet WP:BIO, does not contain independent reliable sources (nor have any been found during this discussion), nor have our notability requirements been satisfied. BWH76 (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that my queries on secondary sources netted no replies? On January 24 2008 my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:

For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic effort...

I offered a detailed reply. And my correspondent concluded.

Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

Please go back and try re-reading this again. Please note that my correspondent offered many opinions on the difference between primary and secondary sources in other threads on the Noticeboard, and that his or her opinion and expertise seems to have been widely accepted. Let me suggest that the lack of further questions is a sign that the regular readers of that forum found the discussion with my well-informed correspondent convincing. If you don't find it convincing, please offer a civil, reasoned explanation of why you don't find it convincing.

I disagree with your interpretation that the consensus was that OARDEC memos do not constitute independent, reliable sources. Do you have counter-arguments? If so, what are they.

WRT your assertion that the article does not fulfill the recommendations of the WP:BIO guideline. I asked other respondents to be specific, and cite the specific passage(s) it does not fulfill. I ask you the same. I have offered my arguments, if you have counter-arguments, again, what are they?

WRT WP:ILIKEIT... I have encountered a limited number of wikipedians who have been willing to use fair means or foul to suppress the wikipedia's coverage of material on the war on terror. Some of them were prepared to go so far as sockpuppetry and wikistalking. Those challengers were classic examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now I have not accused you, or the nominator of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would prefer you show me the same courtesy. IMO this material fully complies with policy. If you disagree, please be civil, please be serious, please be specific.

I work very hard to make my sure my contributions fully comply with policy. Any serious correspondent of mine will tell you that when I find a lapse, I openly acknowledge it, and fix it myself. So, please confine your discussion to points of policy and hold back from making comments on what you imagine my motives to be. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Geoswan, you've gone to great lengths to reject my opinions on this subject, and that's fine. Implying that that I may be a sockpuppet, a Wikistalker, and am not being serious is going too far. Yes, you carefully specifically say that you are not accusing me or anyone else of voicing our opinions with malice, but by couching your comments towards me personally in accusations of sockpuppetry, wikistalking, etc., your implication is clear. Please do not make those baseless accusations.

You are correct, though, in that I had not seen that you asked similar questions in more than one forum. I disagree with the answer you received due to how you made the case. As I wrote before, OARDEC is a military organization under control of the US Department of Navy and under the direction of Rear Admiral James McGarrah - if it is not currently under McGarrah's command, it was in the time period for which all the sources listed in the article were written. You wrote that the reports were written with the oversight of a civilian official, but that's only half the story. The Designated Civilian Official (DCO) was US Secretary of the Navy Gordon England. To sum it up, the OARDEC reports were written by the US military about detainees held by the US military under the oversight of the civilian head of one branch of the US military. I don't believe that this constitutes an independent source. I do think that the OARDEC sources could be perfect for our purposes - but only if they are corroborated by independent sources. BWH76 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that I have rejected any civil argument made by BWH76 or any other participant in this discussion.

I suggest that if you look more closely you will find that being the Designated Civilian Official (DCO) in charge of the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) is not one of the duties of the Secretary of the Navy. Note, when Gordon England was promoted, to be a Deputy Secretary of Defense, he remained the DCO in charge of OARDEC. He wears multiple hats. It is a separate job.

I believe, if you look more closely, you will find that it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that these three positions Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Designated Civilian Official are separate, independent positions, and that the DCO does not report to the Secretary of the Navy, or to the Dep Sec Def.

I had challengers who asserted that OARDEC reported to the Camp Commandant at Guantanamo. That was not true. On paper the relationship is a distant one. My reading of the documents is that in practice it was a distant one. The OARDEC staff had tremendous difficulty getting the cooperation of the JTF-GTMO staff. JTF-GTMO staff routinely withheld exculpatory documents and other evidence from the OARDEC staff. The authors of the memos routinely seemed to have reached very different conclusions from those of the JTF-GTMO.

I asked, in the other forum, how "arm's length" OARDEC would have to be, before you considered it independent. Since you haven't addressed this question, I will repeat those questions.

If OARDEC was run by the UN would you consider it "arm's length"?
If OARDEC was run by NATO would you consider it "arm's length"?
If OARDEC was run by a "Special Prosecutor", a Ken Starr, a Leon Jaworski, with a staff of civilians, would you consider it "arm's length".
What if OARDEC was run a civilian, who was served by a staff of temporarily detached military personnel, who officially reported to him or her, not to the military chain of command?

The last is the current situation. As I said in the other discussion, you are perfectly free to mistrust whether it lies within the capacity of the US Government to have multiple separate agencies, that don't report to one another, that are, on paper independent, and are independent in practice too. You are free to hold this opinion, in private.

The wikipedia's policies would proscribe you inserting this personal opinion into article space. This is an aspect of the wikipedia's policies that some wikipedians find counter-intuitive. Even some experienced administrators forget sometimes that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". It is counter-intuitive, but us wikipedians are not allowed to insert things in articles, because we believe they are "true".

And, similarly, although it may strike you as counter-intuitive, the wikipedia's policies do not allow us to suppress material, no matter how untrue it might seem to us personally, if it complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER and other policies. It may strike you as counter-intuitive, but arguments that neutrally written material, cites valid references, can't be suppressed, because, for instance, it strikes someone as violating "common sense". "Common sense" is not verifiable.

I am not trying to be offensive, but, I think, if you re-read everything you wrote above, after "...but that's only half the story..." -- you may see you are ignoring WP:VER, and making an argument about what "common sense" tells you is "true". WP:VER says we aim for "verifiability, not truth".

I've thought about this. I've thought about whether I could come up with sources that could prove OARDEC was not a truly independent agency? No. I could not. Are there sources that challenge the independence of OARDEC? Sure. Prove? No. You are perfectly free to insert material that cites verifiable authoritative sources that challenges the independence of the OARDEC agency.

Please see the Press Conference England gave when he announced taking up the new job:

Gordon England (June 23, 2008). "Special Defense Department Briefing with Secretary of The Navy Gordon England". United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-03-26.

England said

my comment

"So first of all, thanks for being here. If we haven't met, I'm Gordon England. I'm the Secretary of the Navy. But I'm not with you in that capacity today. Rather, I've been designated by Secretary Rumsfeld to operate and oversee a process to conduct an annual review of each enemy combatant held by the Department of Defense in Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba."

In other words DCO is a separate position

Q	I guess what I mean by the question about whether you want to release more people, is there a sense that perhaps a lot of people are being held who should/could be released?
SEC. ENGLAND:	Charlie, I don't know. I mean, I have not looked at any of the cases, any of the files. I haven't looked at any of this because I really wanted to put a process together that was independent of the people themselves. I wanted to make sure we had as fair a process, fair as we could make it, balanced, as reasonable as we could, so we're putting the process together...

"Verifiability, not truth" -- The process is said to fair and independent.

Q	How are you going to juggle this responsibility with being Navy secretary, though? You've got what seems to be a full plate just being Navy secretary. How are you going to do this, juggle the priorities?
SEC. ENGLAND:	Well, we just spend the time to do it. I mean, we will do this right. Like I said, I take this very seriously, so I'll take the time necessary to do it. We just work a little harder. It will work.

Another claim of independence.

Q	Related to that, sir -- it may be spelled out in here, I'm not sure, but when you say you make the final decision, is your final decision subject to review by the secretary, perhaps, or anyone else?
SEC. ENGLAND:	No, it's not.
Q	So what you say goes.
SEC. ENGLAND:	That's correct.

England, again, specifically assert that he makes the final decision -- that his decision is not subject to review by the Sec Def.

If you will allow me to paraphrase what I think you are saying -- you think it is obvious -- or common senses, that since the Sec Def is England's boss when he is Sec Nav or Deputy Sec Def, England is going to tailor his decisions to please the Sec Def, even when he is wearing his DCO hat. Have I paraphrased you correctly?

Well, he said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable, your opinion that he is not independent is not verifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective intent might actually be important in trying to decipher whether this is a Wikipedia:Coatrack and/or a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.
Intent aside, there's no secondary independant sources. One short response on a noticeboard is far cry from a concensus (a reason why nobody else bothered to reply might be because they aren't interested in getting a long "please explain further" on their talk page (which everyone who disagrees with you seems to be honored with)). The goverment documents stating the charges against him can in no way be considered INDEPENDANT.
The lack of secondary sources aside, there's no significant coverage. The claim that WP:BIO doesn't require significant coverage or that significant coverage means the lack of original research is a total waste of kilobytes. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question is not whether the production of the OARDEC reports is verifiable; they obviously were written. What is difficult is to establish that they constitute independent, reliable sources. As the reliable sources guideline states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." OARDEC is not a third-party. It is a US government organization, led by the now-Deputy Director of Defense, which made judgements on detainees held by the military. It is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.

It was written above that "[H]e [OARDEC Head England] said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable..." His assertions of independence are not in question; whether OARDEC reports constitute independent, reliable sources is the question. We should judge them to be independent because the head of OARDEC says they are independent? No.

OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it has no reputation at all. The recommendations on the OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources. Again, the question is not whether the OARDCEC reports exist, the question of verifiability is of what the OARDEC reports say. So, what are we left with? Nothing. No independent, reliable sources. The article lacks significant (or any) coverage outside of the disputed sources. The article does not satisfy WP:BLP. BWH76 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respondent seems to be suggesting that different agencies within the US government can not be separate agencies. Respondent disputes that OARDEC is not a third party.

Is OARDEC imprisoned in Guantanamo? No.
Is OARDEC responsible for the imprisonment of the captives in Guantanamo? No.

Then, by definition, it is a third party.

Note: three days ago respondent compared the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos to Parole Board reports. Is respondent questioning whether Parole Boards should be considered third parties?

I have problems, which I have addressed elsewhere, with the idea the Guantanamo captives are like ordinary convicted felons. But I agree with what respondent seemed to be saying three days ago, that the OARDEC memos are like Parole Board reports, in that they are the product of a third party.

Respondent suggests that OARDEC's reliability has to be established before it can be considered a reliable source. The Environmental Protection Agency has critics, various other US agencies have critics. The United Nations has critics. The existence of critics does not cause us to disregard the statements that the leaders of those agencies might make at press conferences, or the official documents those agencies publish.

Respondent asserts:

"It [OARDEC] is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.

If respondent is trying repeat that the staff who guard and interrogate the captives are also making the recommendations as to whether they should be released or repatriated then he or she is incorrect. What respondent describes is true of the detention camps in Afghanistan, and was true of Guantanamo -- prior to the creation of the OARDEC.

But OARDEC has a completely different set of staff, from JTF-GTMO. The OARDEC staff report to the DCO, not to the Commandant of JTF-GTMO.

I am going to repeat my request, I would like anyone who thinks the documented relationship between OARDEC and JTF-GTMO to be considered distant enough to be described as "third party" to describe a more distant relationship they would consider "third party".

Respondent asserts:

"OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has no reputation at all."

I think respondent is trying to say OARDEC has a bad reputation. Okay. Fine. What are your sources?

Let's return to the EPA. No, let's pick the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a US Federal Agency that was very severely criticized following its response to Hurricane Katrina. For a period of time FEMA was the butt of jokes, was very widely criticized.

Should the wikipedia have stopped using official FEMA documents as references? Should the wikipedia have accompanied every use of a FEMA document as a reference, with a reference to one of FEMA's authoritative critics?

I suggest that if respondent thinks OARDEC's bad reputation rivals FEMA's he or she is perfectly free to provide other references he or she thinks will provide balance.

Respondent asserts:

"OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources."

Respondent seems to be insisting that wikipedians have to make sure allegations are idependently proven true, before we place them in an article. When we cover the allegations against ordinary people no one hires private detectives to independently verify those allegations.

Nor should we. What we should do is attribute the allegations to a source. This article does attribute the allegations to a source, a serious, official source. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was OARDEC part of the same organization that is currently detaining the subject of the article? Yes.
Has OARDEC been led by someone that is closely involved in the organization detaining this person? Yes.
Was OARDEC responsible for reviewing the case of the individual to determine whether he remains in captivity? Yes.
Is OARDEC an independent, reliable third-party source? No.
Although the burden of proof to proove the independent reliability should be on the article creater (or editors), here is at least one person who believed the process/organization to be flawed.
"A more distant relationship" for a third party? Mainstream news organizations; "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", to name two. Basically, any source that does not have a direct connection to the subject matter. OARDEC has a direct connection in that it judged whether the detainee stayed in or was released from detention.
Please do not write what you think I am trying to say. OARDEC has no reputation at all (be it good or bad) as an independent organization. Please stick to judging the article on its own merits.
Comparing the independence of a military organization charged with determining the freedom of detainees held by the military to that of the EPA is comparing apples and oranges. If it's necessary to explain this in more detail, I will, but we've wasted enough space already in this AfD.
My parole board comparison was a bit off, I admit, as some are independent agencies while some are part of the department of corrections (in the US). [This wiki entry makes the clear distinction between the two.] OARDEC does not fall into the category of "independent agency" here.
As for adding more sources to balance the article, I think that's what we've been discussing now for days. There ARE no other independent, reliable sources out there that anyone has yet found. This is why the opinion that there is not significant coverage of this individual has been voiced repeatedly above.BWH76 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think at this point it'll probably close as "No consensus" no matter how many arguments either side puts forward. At this point I think two specific users are just wasting their time arguing, neither will get the other to confess the error of their ways - why not just put this effort into improving articles, rather than arguing over bureaucracy? Neither side is going to change anything today, it seems - so let's move forward without the emnity and spats. :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally agree that we're wasting time, but as the article doesn't satisfy WP:BLP (for independent secondary sources as is described above ad nauseam) and the decision could potentially effect numerous articles, I wouldn't be so hasty to close this AfD as a no consensus.BWH76 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all these kilobytes of incorrect wikipedia policy, that is exactly what the creator wishes should happen. But "No concensus" is when there is valid argument on both sides. I hope the closing admin sees through all this filibusting, and closes this afd applying WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ffs...yes, and Geo_Swan hopes that the closing admins sees through it all and closes it as keep...I said to STOP the arguments, not take one last swing at looking like the genius. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pretty much all the arguments made above for getting rid of this: esp the coatracking and bio issues that have been cited. And I would also indicate my agreement with User:Brewcrewer's point above that the closing admin should focus the decision on this on policy. This will likely end up at DRV, so the need to ground a close in policy is all the more pressing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided support notability. This is exactly the type of article we should have on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned ad nauseum, goverment documents can't be used as sources that establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to participation (involuntary though it may be) in extraordinarily notable legal controversy. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I live in, and participate with, the State of California, which is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Does that make me notable?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he is notable. --SJK (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please state how you came to that conclusion using Wikipedia notability guidelines. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please stop harrassing everybody who votes, it just makes you look like a dick. I've never yet seen somebody change their vote because one over-zealous voter browbeats them...they disagree with you, let it stand. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stay WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Brewcrewer: Although this discussion has been polarized from the start, we should nevertheless be trying to work towards a consensus. Some people will provide short opinions, others (who have the time) longer ones. That should be respected. You are not in a law court and you can't demand explanations from people - and yes, it was harassment what you were doing. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO .We cannot be having articles for everyone detained.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2008 (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.

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. The discussion below indicates that the subject does not pass the requirements of WP:BIO. --jonny-m t 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yakub Abahanov[edit]

Delete Article does not meet WP:BLP as there are no independent secondary sources. There are a few inclusions of this individual in lists of detainees in independent sources, but no sources focus exclusively on him. This entry in Wikipedia is similar to this AfD which was deleted in that the military documents used to justify this article are not independent secondary sources. BWH76 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, talk page has 34 edits by 12 distinct users discussing the subject. In addition, numerous news articles refer to Abahanov and the two other Kazakhs, without using their specific names, but referring to them as a "A Kazakh who served as a cook for the Taliban" and such. Nominator has a history of requesting deletion of Guantanamo-bay related articles which borders on bad-faith at times. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep~~. Article needs cleanup, but it is not beyond hope. Flagged for rescue. —BradV 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:. Is there an existing consensus on the significance of individual gitmo detainees? If so, what about the 646 articles at Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Are we going to AfD them all one at a time? —BradV 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to delete per arguments made below, and existing consensus not to have an article on each detainee. I don't see any evidence that the subject is any more notable than any of the others, and the references only cover this detainee as part of a list. This may be an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. (P.S. I would still like an answer on the above question - it wasn't sarcasm.) —BradV 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is quite noteable. archanamiya · talk 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Articles on arbitrary Gitmo detainees don't belong. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we have articles on Hitler's chauffeur, Hitler's valet, Hitler's nurse, Hitler's electrician, Hitler's doctor, Hitler's pilot, Hitler's bodyguard, Hitler's medical aide, Hitler's secretary and Hitler's chef. We have over 1000 articles on Quarterbackers in the NFL, we have every single Pokemon character...and you're arguing that an alleged terrorist "isn't notable enough" to merit a neutral article collecting the details about them? The article may have WP:COATRACK issues, but it certainly deserves to exist.

In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like Raymond Lee Harvey or Thomas Bernard Brigham? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient litmus test for notability.

Comment: We do not, in fact, have articles on every individual Pokémon character. They were merged last year with only the most notable Pokémon still having their own articles. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage. A fortiori, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.

Agreed that the Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.

Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates WP:UNDUE. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating WP:COATRACK.

The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons. WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH (he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not about his activity at GB, its about his prior activity which is being used as justification for his detention at GB. There's several good sources besides the GB transcripts. This article does not have the claimed defects of some of the GB articles, and I really think that at least some of the opposition here is based on a feeling that it is better not to cover these individuals. As for the other articles, yes, we are going to have to look at them one at a time, because some of the people have received more adequate coverage than others. As I think that sources will exists in the individuals native country for all of them, I foresee adding all of them back as people learn how to find them. DGG (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the number of edits on a talk page does not address the reason I nominated this article for deletion and is not a basis for "significant coverage" or anything else. Opinions stating "I think this man is notable" do not mean that there are independent secondary sources which focus on this individual; these opinions (less justification for these opinions) are simply examples of WP:ILIKEIT. It boils down to the fact that there are no independent secondary sources out there (and I've spent time trying to find one, let alone significant coverage) in which this individual is the subject of the article. The sources referenced in the article DO NOT focus on this individual (except for the military documents, which are not independent, secondary sources); if he is mentioned at all in the sources given, his name simply appears on a list. This clearly doesn't meet the basic requirements for WP:BLP nor the basic criteria for WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple references in reliable sources independent of the subject, Afd is not cleanup; this topic is notable, which is all that counts here. Skomorokh 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone over this article repeatedly to find any independent sources on this; there are none in this article. There are military documents related to his trial and detainment - primary sources. Again, check out this AfD to see what the consensus has been on these sources - they are not independent secondary sources. There are a few references in the article that mention Abrahamov; he is the subject of none of them - in fact, he is not even mentioned by name in any of the references in the article. This article, despite the rescue tag that was placed on it, still does not satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO. BWH76 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should be merged to list of gitmo detainees, or an article on the trials themselves. MrPrada (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can almost be interpreted as a POV fork, but subject is not notable by himself. He falls well short on WP:BIO. The number of people commenting on an article's talk page is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia policy is satisfied by the article and the subject. The court case would be a much better subject for inclusion here instead. Delete B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by himself. Another article about an arbitrary GB detainee. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2008 (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.

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 } no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani[edit]

Since 2006 our policy on biographies of living individuals has become a lot firmer, and we have become less tolerant of articles which purport to be biographies but are in fact about something else. I believe this is one such. I think it is fair to say that the detention of political prisoners without trial in the cause fo "freedom" is one of the greater ironies of the 21st Century, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International and we should not be writing faux-biographies to cover essentially generic content such as the fact that no proper independent review process exists for detainees, if only out of practical considerations of redundancy. A quick survey leads me to conclude that most of the articles on individual detainees are, in the present WP:BLP climate, merged or deleted, and I believe that is fundamentally right. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless a merge target can be found for abridged info.--Doc^g 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage of the proceedings has made him notable. --Eastmain (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, press coverage of the proceedings has made the proceedings notable. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I would appreciate a fuller explanation as to why nominator considers this a "faux-biography".

Please note:

Analysts accused him of being an Osama bin Laden bodyguard.
although the rules required his continued detention to have been reviewed in 2005, the record shows it was not reviewed.
he did have a Review Board hearing scheduled for 2006 -- a month after he had already been released.

I disagree with the nominator that material like this turns the wikipedia into "Amnesty International". I already responded to this assertion yesterday, on the nominator's talk page. I pointed out that Amnesty International is a kind of advocacy group, that the material it publishes makes no attempt to comply with anything like the wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I believe this article, on the other hand, fully complies with the wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. If there is some passage(s) the nominator, or anyone else, thinks does not comply with WP:NPOV, or any other policy, please be specific.

Frankly, I am puzzled by challenges like this one. They leave me wondering whether some contributors think there should be some kind of unofficial cap on the number of bytes that can be devoted to certain topics. If the wikipedia community wants to put caps on the amount of coverage of certain topics, then lets talk about those caps openly.

The wikipedia already covers lots of topics I am not interested in, and some I think are patent nonsense. I think the field of Homeopathy is patent nonsense. But I don't dispute that an article that cites good references could be written from a neutral point of view about it. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of any policy-compliant material because I, personally, thought the topic was nonsense.

Similarly, I am not a fan of American football. I didn't play it as a kid, and don't really know the rules. I took a look at Category:American football quarterbacks. It currently contains 1136 entries. I started looking at the articles, and found about a third were mere stubs, only a couple of sentences long, that didn't cite any references at all. Football is popular. I can see people wanting to look these guys up, even if our articles don't provide much information. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of that material, just because I, personally, don't find it interesting myself.

Do people read the wikipedia's material on the war on terror? Absolutely. Do readers use the wikipedia's material on individual Guantanamo captives. Absolutely. I get questions from readers about material I have contributed on this topic, both on my talk page, and by email. I see places where articles like this one are explicitly cited, and instances where I am morally convinced an author used our material without citing it. WP:ATA suggests "usefulness" is not always a good argument for inclusion. But, since this article does fully comply with policy, I would suggest this is one of the instances when usefulness is a good argument for inclusion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Media coverage of Guantanamo have made the inmates collectively notable, but I doubt one in ten thousand could name a handful, if that many, let alone give any pertinent facts about them. Neither does this article; it's full of legal minutiae, much of it not specifically about the subject. I wouldn't call this a WP:BLP issue -- there isn't a thing here not on legal record -- but as it stands, the sources are not really about the subject (as opposed to being about Guantanamo detainees generally) and I question whether any exist. RGTraynor 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are perfectly free to find the material uninteresting. But I don't understand how you can say the sources aren't about Al Juhani. We have several pages of allegation memos, drafted independently, from first principles, that is about nothing but Al Juhani. And, of course, we have his testimony, which I think you will agree, is about him? Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete because the only coverage of him is part of lists of those in guantanamo, probably there's already a list of them, on which he is placed. He's not notable in and of himself because sources have not been articles about him alone in-depth. [27] special, random, Merkinsmum 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, I hope, if I question whether you may have a misconception I have encountered before. WP:BIO says nothing about requiring media sources. I believe this article fully complies with this and other policies and guidelines. If there is a specific passage in a policy or guideline which you think the article does not comply with I would be very grateful if you would return here, and quote it. I am going to paste in the lead sentence:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

Please note, he is accused of having been one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, something that lead to other captives facing war crimes charges.

Please note, the DoD seems to have completely lost track of him for two years, failing to schedule a review in 2005, and then scheduling a review of his detention -- after he had already been released from detention. You do not regard this as significant? It would be really helpful to me, and I would really appreciate it, if you would try to explain why you do not regard this allegation, his disappearance from the record, as significant.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, how many prisoners do you think the United States "loses" a day? What about that is a prima facie declaration of "significance?" If (allegedly) being bin Laden's bodyguard makes the fellow notable, how can his name have only twenty unique Google hits [28], a total dwarved by insignificant Myspace wannabees we AfD in carload lots? Answer: he ain't notable. RGTraynor 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many prisoners in the US criminal justice system might get temporarily lost for a day. But Al Juhani wasn't lost for a day. He was lost for two years. Not only was he lost. He was released without the OARDEC, the agency with the responsibility to authorize released, realizing he had been released.

Let me suggest that the losing track of Al Juhani the record reflects has more in common to the release of Willie Horton. How commonly are murderers or suspected terrorists accidentally released by the US Criminal Justice System? Are you trying to suggest that if it became known that if a suspected terrorist was accidentally released from the US Criminal Justice System it would not merit coverage here? Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User GeoSwan- you made the quote for me- every wikipedia article needs to have been the subject itself of reliable sources, otherwise it is non-notable. Ok it's not unverifiable, but no journalist etc has considered him personally someone to write an article about. We're not a secondary source- we're a tertiary source that is wikipedia summarizes what has been written about the subject. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse me. Every fact that should be referenced is referenced. Every reference in this article is verifiable. Several people have told me that the policies state articles require media coverage. But, no offense, when I checked the policies they cited, for myself, I could not find the passages that required media coverage. I'd be very grateful if you can find the places in the policy that state this.

Other challengers seem to be saying that even if the policy doesn't state that articles require media coverage we should treat the policies as if they said what "everyone" thinks they say. Well, if it were really true that everyone really did think the policies both required media coverage, and agreed that the policies should say require media coverage, then the policy should be rewritten, so it says what everyone thinks it says. If simply everyone agreed the that the policy should say the articles should require media coverage, then I would agree with deleting this article, until the policies were rewritten. I'd nominate similar articles for deletion myself.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, even ignoring my hatred for "second attempts" to have something deleted....we have articles on Hitler's chauffeur, Hitler's valet, Hitler's nurse, Hitler's electrician, Hitler's doctor, Hitler's pilot, Hitler's bodyguard, Hitler's medical aide, Hitler's secretary and Hitler's chef. We have over 1000 articles on Quarterbackers in the NFL, we have every single Pokemon character...and you're arguing that an alleged terrorist "isn't notable enough" to merit a neutral article collecting the details about them?

In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like Raymond Lee Harvey or Thomas Bernard Brigham? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient litmus test for notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 60 and 90 respectively, which aren't awful for folks whose fifteen minutes of fame (if they can be said to have had that many) were before the Internet era. That being said, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a compelling argument, and that being said, this article in fact contains no verifiable details about the subject beyond the legal proceedings against him. No details of his life are reported beyond the unsourced claim by counter-terrorist units of his date and place of birth. Even on nothing more than biographical grounds, it's terribly deficient. Is this really anything more than WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK violations? RGTraynor 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of which are Wikipedia mirrors and conspiracy theorist forums, I don't see a single "Reputable source" for either of them. I'm sure with digging, one could be found - same as ones could be found for al-Juhani if we spoke Arabic. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Agree, wikipedia conventionally does not put stock in "other stuff". But, I'd really appreciate learning why you don't consider the info in the allegations memos to be verifiable? Similarly, concerning "the details of his life" -- we know a lot more about a lot of people we have articles about. Marraiges, children, where they went to school, etc. But we do know quite a bit about Al Juhani. The Summary of Evidence memo from his CSR Tribunal lists seven allegations. I would be very grateful to read your explanation as to why these should not be considered "details of his life". Is it possible that the authors of the OARDEC memos got it wrong? Sure. But, since the wikipedia's policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth", I suggest it doesn't matter if you or I have private doubts about the truth of the allegations in the memo. In particular, I suggest, being accused of being one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards alone should be meaningful enough to merit coverage here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started an article on Frederick G. Creed in 2005. It is still pretty sparse, sparser than Al Juhani's. And, like the article on Al Juhani, it is useful nonetheless. Let me suggest that lacking a complete set of the details of someone's life should not be grounds to delete an article on an inventor, or an alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguard. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage. A fortiori, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.

Agreed that the Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.

Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates WP:UNDUE. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating WP:COATRACK.

The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons. WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH (he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His "claim to fame" seems to be mostly that he is a prisoner in Guantanomo, and he's hardly the only person to accomplish that. I question his worldwide and long term notability. After you remove the legal-speak and blatant POV, you would have a two line stub about a prisoner that was eventually repatriated to his country. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to "claim to fame" WP:BIO explicitly clarifies, in the first paragraph, that notability is not the same as "fame".

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

I've asked this participant to be specific about which passage(s) triggered their concern over a "blatant POV". Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article reads like an essay about how unlawful/unfair it is for prisoners to be in GB, and it has more to do with the Tribunal process than Al Juhani. Significant sections of the lede and other paragraphs are dedicated to the questionable legal status/ethical status of GB, which isn't explicitly relevant to this person in this article. I actually had to read the article twice to figure out what "crime" he is accused of land himself there, because it is mentioned once in the lede, and then further relevant details about the case are buried near the bottom. In short, it looks like a GB coatrack, propped around a non-notable prisoner that has since been released from the American jail in which he was serving. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your reply. I am interested in your comments about finding the article hard to read. I'd like to take them into account when improving the article. But I think the deletion policies are pretty clear that perceptions that articles are hard to read are not normally grounds for deletion.

And thanks for your comment about WP:COATRACK. I've re-read the COATRACK essay just a week or so ago. It is a good essay. But I am surprised by suggestions that this article matches any of its descriptions. I would be very grateful if you would return to the COATRACK essay, and state which specific passages of that essay you think apply. I'll thank you in advance for doing that. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the basis there will probably be sources there as well. The article is about what he did before GB, and what happened after. I don't myself see what the number of quarterbacks have to do with it, but I dont see how the number of GB prisoners has anything to do with it either. We can accommodate whatever we need to. If something should make a large number of individuals notable, we can deal with it as long as we have verifiable information about each of them. In this case we do. DGG (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Guantanamo prisoners hailing from western countries, for example the Tipton Three, couldn't be more notable and have received media coverage ad nauseam. I'm sure there's a fair deal of sources about him in Arabic too: [29]. Controversies in international politics and diplomacy about US anti-terrorists imprisonment policies are of such an order of magnitude that, all individuals incarcerated in Guatanamao are ipso facto notable, contra NickPenguin. Also, what DGG says.--victor falk 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If all GB prisoners are ipso facto notable, then does that mean that all the names on List of Guantánamo Bay detainees should be redlinked? That's a lot of stub articles for people that may only be notable for a prison sentence. EDIT And this guy isn't even on that list! Tell me again how he is notable? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes.
  - Just like there's a lot of stub and red-linked articles for olympic gold medalists, WP:PAPER; if you will, Gitmo is like winning gold in the global carceral system.
  - Perhaps he should be added, then? About half are blue-linked, it seems in this list as a matter of copy-editing style, it has been chosen to have all the others black, which is very reasonable, as a lot of red links is distracting to the reader. ¨victor falk 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, just because you believe Guantanamo is the gold medal of the carceral system doesn't mean it's true, and that isn't really a perfect analogy. But without drawing into question the notability of the prison itself, is this a case where the individual is notable outside this single prison sentence, or is he only notable for this single event? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nick, sometimes people agree on the facts, and disagree in the conclusions they draw. But, no offense, you have repeated a couple of misconceptions. The only Guantanamo captive to receive a sentence was David Hicks, for the final couple of months or so he spent there. Please don't confuse the captives with convicted felons. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, minor wording issues aside, my general criticism still applies: is he notable for anything other than this event? If not, then the event article needs more attention, and this article can be deleted. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Though there is coverage of Gitmo trials in general, there is not significant coverage of this individual himself. There is only one independent secondary source reference (the Huffington Post article) that says anything more about him than simply his name, but he's not the focus of the article. The majority of references listed for him are military documents that do not constitute independent secondary sources. This article clearly violates WP:BIO basic criteria. BWH76 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read assertions that these kinds of sources fail WP:BIO before. And I have asked for the specific passages my correspondents think they do not fulfill. But, to be very frank, my correspondents have left me sadly disappointed, by not being able to cite those passages. Perhaps you would be so kind as to make the effort to cite those passages where others have not? Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I can't speak for others but the passage that I would cite would be: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted... Cover the event, not the person." Since all the information comes from the Gitmo context, I think WP:BLP1E applies. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I take it you'll be cleaning out Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors next? --Pixelface (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS trumps WP:BLP. (Not to say that I think all articles in that category necessarily pose a problem -- only if they have the WP:BLP1E problem of not including biographical information and only focusing on one event in the person's life.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the individuals in that category have done nothing notable outside of surviving the holocaust, then those articles should be deleted, clearly. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the information in the article looks verifiable, neutral, and does not appear to be original research — conforming to WP:BLP. This doesn't appear like a "faux biography" to me. I think this individual is significant enough to be recorded. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same BLP concerns that have stricken the rest of the Gitmo entries. At the heart of it all, these articles are not fundamentally biographies of people, as we have no real biographical information (aside from information about (or related to) their incarceration)). While their treatment may be well covered and documented, that makes the treatment notable, not the individuals. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Xdenizen (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG, Pixelface and others. Also claims there are somehow BLP issues are unconvincing; these are notable people and we have no reason to believe that any of them have a problem with having an article. Indeed, if one takes one POV more publicity makes it more likely that these people will be released, so the notion that there is a harm in having articles about this individual is hard to understand. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bfigura. Articles on arbitrary Gitmo detainees are generally going to fall due to non-notability. I'm seriously concerned that many of these articles are being used as coatracks to bring up anti-GB sentiments. Which sentiments I tend to share, but grossly violate WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out a passage that could be interpreted as npov and rousing anti-GB sentiments in this particular article (cf. wp:otherstuff)?victor falk 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if Muhamad wasn't notable for being an alleged body-guard to Osama Bin Laden, articles on individual detainees is motivated by Wikipedia:Summary style, if longer than a couple of lines as it otherwise would make the List of Guantánamo Bay detainees completely unmanageable.14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Even though the list may be acceptable with regard to WP:OR, the introductory prose needs heavy sourcing if it is to be included in the merger. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list[edit]

Delete - This is a clear example of original research and perhaps POV fork. There are no sources that focus on this claim. The inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is WP:SYN - by using this original research as the basis of the page, the implication is that the process is flawed, illegal, or something else. It may or may not be,　but Wikipedia is not the forum for making these claims based upon original research. BWH76 (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding nominator's concern that the article implies "that the process is flawed, illegal, or something else." The deletion policies are quite clear on this -- a perception that the current version of an article contains bias is not grounds for deletion. The deletion policies are quite clear on this. Wikipedians who are concerned because they perceive a bias in an article are supposed to state their concern on the article's talk page; or make good faith changes to the articles. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the nominator is concerned is "original research" are merely collation and correlation, it is no different than looking up any information available on a reliable, authoritative source, and quoting it. It is no different than looking up census data from the census bureau, or baseball statistics from the baseball musuem at Cooperstown. The names are either present on one or more of the official lists, or they are not. I do not see how this constitutes "original research" as defined in the wikipedia's original research policy. Geo Swan (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Regarding merging to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (LoGBd). Several people have suggested merging this article into (LoGBd) I did the lion's share of the initial work maintaining (LoGBd), up until about two years ago. On April 20 2006 and May 15 2006 the DoD published its first two official lists of captive's names. Ideally this article should have incorporate the information in those two lists. Doing so would represent significant work. I didn't do it. I was working on other articles. And no one else has done it either. The reason I am bringing this up is to suggest that this merge would not be trivial, as has been suggested. I predict it would require at least twenty hours to do even a half-assed job. Here are the two lists from 2006:
- OARDEC (April 20, 2006). "List of detainee who went through complete CSRT process" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.
- OARDEC (May 15, 2006). "List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.

The DoD released nine further lists in September 2007:

- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Index for Combatant Status Review Board unclassified summaries of evidence" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (September 4, 2007). "Index for testimony" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 8, 2007). "Index for CSRT Records Publicly Files in Guantanamo Detainee Cases" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 9, 2007). "Index of Transcripts and Certain Documents from ARB Round One" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 9, 2007). "Index to Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round One" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Index to Transfer and Release Decision for Guantanamo Detainees" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Transcripts and Certain Documents from Administrative Review Boards Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Index of Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 10, 2007). "Index of Transfer and Release Decision for Guantanamo Detainees from ARB Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Delete As above. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, with a bit of WP:SOAP thrown in for good measure. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article List of Guantánamo Bay detainees or Keep. People seem to have done serious work that deserves to be preserved in some form. There doesn't seem to be serious OR in the making of this list of those perhaps not on the official list, only perhaps in the (implicit) claim. The explanatory statements in the article could be rephrased. Some kinds of "OR" are allowable - e.g. simple arithmetic, this "claim" is close to that. The issue is confused by other factors, but if there were say two clear lists, a USGov list of 50 and an ICRC list of 80, it wouldn't be serious OR to have a "list of people on the ICRC list, not on the USG list" although it might not be too sensible. But sometimes it could be sensible - List of unrecognized countries is a similar convenient way of presenting clearly encyclopedic data. Does NOR dictate that is necessary to append it to a bigger article most of which is taken up by fascinating facts like Uruguay recognizes Mongolia? A sensible way to keep this data and be a stickler could be to have a USG list in the main article and a section with (possible) additional names. Another way would be to have a big list with notations. The "possible" - much of the confusion comes from translation problems, translation being another kind of allowable "OR." Aside from such unavoidable, translational "is this name/person the same as that name/person?" problems, it's just a question in how to best present data, not really policy violation, although perhaps we should try to avoid even the appearance of violating policy. John Z (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly have no problem if this was merged and made less soapy. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. As a stand-alone article, it's not sourced to any published source that identifies these as missing names. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per JohnZ's comments. Renee (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, Depending, if it's going to be merged, I'd like to see BWH do the work of ensuring no information is lost, and simply transferred over to the main article. For the past six months he has been consistently nominating one of Geo_Swan's articles for deletion every week, as soon as the last AfD ends (sometimes keep, sometimes NC, sometimes delete)...looking at Geo_Swan's talk page it's difficult to not see some form of user harrassment going on with the constant "I've nominated X, Y and Z for deletion". Nominator has a very long history of trying to have all Guantanamo-related articles deleted, even those ones that are clearly notable - I would suggest that these AfDs form a WP:COATRACK of their own, an attempt to purge as much collected information about the US prison camp from the internet as possible, with a minimum of effort (an article that requires twenty hours of work to create, can be deleted with thirty seconds of BWH's effort, so simple numbers mean he can effectively keep nominating every new article created) - so it would actually do quite a bit to sway my opinion if the nominator says he is willing to take the time necessary to merge these two articles himself, perhaps showcasing a User:BWH76/gitmoDetainees attempt? If I'm shown that, I'll vote Merge, but otherwise I'll vote Keep simply to stymie what seems to be a personal vendetta and agenda. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's try to stay civil here. BWH is under no obligation to "do the work of ensuring no information is lost", particularly since he/she nominated the article for deletion. There are several hundred of the Guantanamo Bay detainee articles, and there's nothing to suggest that each one required "twenty hours to create". GeoSwan and BWH are both entitled to their opinions concerning creating or nominating for deletion, articles about the Gitmo detainees. One could say, I suppose, that both of them have an "agenda". I think it's more likely that both of them have strong feelings about the articles. Certainly, I don't think that either Geo or BWH is waging a "personal vendetta" Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but if one user "has an agenda to create articles about World Cup players", and another user has "an agenda to delete all articles about World Cup players", I'm going to view those two "agendas' differently. If you have "strong feelings" about Guantanamo detainees, go make sure their articles are neutral and don't give any sympathetic bias...don't try to remove all mention of them. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I don't see a POV problem with the title, as many details surrounding Guantanamo are not released to the public, and instead come out in dribs and drubs in the press. As far as "original research", the names are either on the official list or they're not. I don't see any new facts being derived. That said, the main article, List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, already draws on multiple sources and this article could be merged there without too much trouble. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. POV fork, and OR concerns per BWH76, although I do believe it should be kept. MrPrada (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yes, may be alot of work but worth it for the project. Mikebar (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above XCharltonTilliDieX^Talk/_Contribs 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I believe the perceptions of "original research" are based on misreading of the original resarch policy, as I explained above.

As I noted above perceptions of bias are not grounds for deletion.

There are some passages in the article I wrote in good faith, but which I now think should be toned down. The DoD claimed that three individuals, "Mullah Shahzada", "Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar" and Abdullah Mehsud were former Guantanamo captives, among the first captives to be released, who lied and tricked their way out of Guantanamo. They weren't named on the official lists. These three men were described as Taliban leaders of company, battalion, or brigade sized units. If they were really held at Guantanamo it would be highly significant. But they weren't on the official lists.
Finally I wrote to the DoD, asking for clarification on these three guys. A public affairs officer explained that all three really had been held in Guantanamo. He offered me their official ID numbers. I explained that the wikipedia's policies did not allow me to cite his private email as a reference. I asked him to put their ID numbers up on the DoD website. Maybe he didn't get approval, because their ID numbers have not been made public. I didn't feel I could make corrections based solely on private email, no matter how authoritative the source would be, if it were public.
When I looked at the article yesterday I realized I could take four other names off the list: Murtada Ali Said Maqram, Musa Ali Said Al Said Al Umari, Sofiane Haderbache, Ghallab Bashir. They weren't totally missing from official lists. The summary of evidence memos published in 2006 had merely named them using names that couldn't be reconciled with the names on the official lists. When the DoD released nine more official lists last September, which less obfuscated than the first two lists, it became possible to figure out who they were.
I explained, above, why I regard List of Guantanamo Bay detainees as a poor target to merge this article with.
Approximately one fifth of the captives were named inconsistently. I think this should be the list the article should be merged with -- the list of captives who have been named inconsistently.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The WP:OR upon which this article is based is used to push a point, be it implicitly or explicitly. The inclusion of the article itself on Wikipedia is a WP:FORK and synthesis of facts.

No sources cover this subject. The only source that lends any weight to the fact that some detainees were left off of this list is Wikipedia itself. There are no other sources that lend this subject any weight or importance. I've tried to find even one reference; so far, no such luck.

Giving importance to this subject with an encyclopedic article without any sources making the claim that this is important is WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN).

The inclusion of this article itself is the example of the WP:NPOV error (and the WP:FORK) and is the basis of my nomination of this article for AfD.

Also, out of curiosity, have we done away with the guideline of writing comments underneath the previous entries in chronological order?

Lastly, I responded on the editor's talk page of the ridiculous accusations made against me in this AfD. BWH76 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger writes:

The only source that lends any weight to the fact that some detainees were left off of this list is Wikipedia itself.

The DoD was under a court order to publish all the captive's names. The article clearly stated this. I suggest that a consistent pattern of failure to comply with this court order is notable, without regard to its cause.

The wikipedia is not a hagiography. I suggest it is not the role of wikipedia contributors to clean up the record of their favourite cause, favourite band, favourite politician, favourite nation, by suppressing information they regard as embarrassing, when that material is well referenced, written from a neutral point of view, and otherwise complies with all policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH if there ever was one. And to boot - WP:COATRACK, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep I'm inclined to agree with the author that this doesn't fall under the definition of synthesis work. I would compare it to box scores in baseball in an article about notable baseball records. An external source is necessary to make some sort of superlative claim ("This was the first time any team did X") but not ANY claim ("More runs were scored in the last 5 innings than the first four").

However, the lack of outside sources that reference the article topic in its entirety is disturbing. I'm not suggesting that such an absence is a sign that the article need to be deleted on face. but it is a sign that caution should be used. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I re-read what I've written in this discussion and realized that I may not have clearly explained why this is a WP:FORK. The content of the article is not actually about the detainees that are not on this list. The article is WP:OR on how this list was released - not about the detainees. The only information about the detainees is the bullet list.

And again, why is this WP:OR? The importance lent to this subject is the WP:SYN. Saying that this is important based upon a court order again is OR and SYN. The importance given to this subject only appears on Wikipedia. I think that the baseball box scores are not an accurate comparison - creating an article based solely upon what didn't happen in a baseball game (without any references) would be much more similar - and similarly an OR and POV issue. BWH76 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Guantánamo Bay detainees. This is merely a subset of that list; perhaps the unofficial detainees could be listed in colored cells. There should also be a single section added to the article to discuss this issue.

This clearly is not WP:OR - we have a source for the official list and we have a source for these other detainees. Nor is this WP:SYN - the sources about the detainees establish their detention, and the official DoD source establishes that they are not listed. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a long list, and can appropriately be divided. The sources are reliable for the purpose. The concept of those not on the official list is relevant as a special aspect of the situation. Those who do not like some of the individual GB articles should like this way of doing it instead. I hope this is not a situation where people feel more comfortable with as few articles as possible on the topic. DGG (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is in fact relevant, why are there no sources that claim this relevance/importance? There are no sources (and nothing referenced in the article) that make this claim. The article makes the assumption that this is relevant - which is WP:SYN since there are no references establishing this as being something important. BWH76 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the detainees are being held at Guantanamo is the thing of relevance/importance. The listed/unlisted classification simply indicates the source. And this classification needn't be notable itself per WP:N#NCONTENT. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (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.

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.

The article is about a Guantanamo Bay detainee who, judging from the article, is notable only for being a Guantanamo Bay detainee ("generic detainee"). It is mostly a compilation of content from US government documents concerning his detention. To determine consensus, I am also looking to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, which concerned another generic detainee and resulted in "delete", the recent DRV that endorsed the deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination), also about a generic detainee, which in retrospect I probably should have closed differently. (GeoSwan asserts that several similar AfDs have resulted in "keep", but he provides no links, and I can't find such AfDs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/archive.)

The primary arguments for deletion made by the majority of participating editors (here and in the other cited discussions) are that the generic detainee is covered in any detail only in documents produced by the government detaining him, which (according to the editors holding this opinion) leads to WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:BLP issues because of the lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. On the whole, the arguments put forth by the substantial minority of "keep" advocates do not conclusively rebut this position:

Leaving aside the question whether or not the US government documents are reliable sources (I've seen little that suggests that they are not, insofar as they are concerned with the facts of the man's detention), the crucial issue here is the lack of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Everybody who is detained under a modern legal system has a lot of government paperwork generated about him, but our consensus (both as reflected in WP:BIO and in these deletion discussions) is that such paperwork is a primary source and does not suffice for notability, or else all prisoners would be notable just for having a government file.

This means that Guantanamo Bay detainees need to have substantial secondary coverage (specifically about them, not about the detention issue as a whole), and that's where this individual falls short. As far as I can see, all we have are these articles in which he is named as belonging to a group of six released Yemeni detainees. This would possibly qualify as sufficient sourcing for an article about this group of detainees, but it's far from the level of coverage that would enable us to write an article about the individual detainee.

After weighing the strength of the arguments that have been made here in the light of the community's wider consensus as established in WP:BIO, and in the light of the recent deletion discussions about generic detainees, I find that we have consensus to delete this article. This does not preclude well-sourced coverage of this man in a list of detainees or in any other appropriate form except for a dedicated article. Sandstein (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i[edit]

Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Either that or list all inmates. JerryVanF (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom JerryVanF (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am studying the matter but it may take more time than the AFD is running. Not only that but I have to run to the toilet now. JerryVanF (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed AfD listing (please use {{afd2}}; see the detailed directions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion). cab (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concensus from previous Guantanomo Bay detainee Afd's has been that the detainess are no differnet then any other people and must meet the notabiliy standard of WP:BIO. Therefore, as the article does show that this person has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" the article must be deleted. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying "Consensus dictates...", that's bullshit and you know it - out of every hundred identical AfDs on Gitmo detainees, a third are "keep", a third are "delete" and a third are "no consensus" depending who's online which week. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, a longer discussion is needed. RFC? Something else? Got to run. JerryVanF (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're itching for another barnstar. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see at least three instances of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and Google yields even more. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

Several dozen articles on Guantanamo captives have been nominated for deletion. Contrary to assertions made above considerably more of them survived their {{afd}} than resulted in deletion.
What I have found is that many participants concerns over these articles have been based on misconceptions. --that the Guantanamo captives were convicts. Nominator calls Al Marwa’i an "inmate". If this reflects a belief on the nominator's part that Al Marwa'i is a convict -- if this reflects a lack of awareness on the nominator's part that Al Marwa'i not only has not been been convicted of any crimes, he was detained, for years, without being charged with any crimes. Yes, the Geneva Conventions allow holding Prisoners of War until hostilities are over. But, it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that al Marwa'i was not a Prisoner of War.
The assertion was made, above, that other articles related to Guantanamo have been nominated for deletion. Several dozen have been nominated for deletion. The assertion goes on to imply that most of them resulted in delete outcomes. First, I think that the policy is that every {{afd}} discussion should stand on its own. Second, this is highly misleading. Several times as many of those discussions resulted in keep or no consensus outcomes.
Regarding the assertion, above, that the article fails to measure up to WP:BIO ... I wonder whether any participants who believe this to be the case would show the courtesy of being specific as to which clause(s) they think it fails to measure up to? Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp has about 640 articles, and it's subcats have another 150 or so, and the cat page says there's been about 800 detainees, which seems to imply nearly every detainee does have an article. Shawisland (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 778 known detainees at Guantanamo, though as I wrote below, those that do not have independent, reliable sources of which they are the focus have been deleted. BWH76 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what respondent is trying to say above. I am concerned that the preceding statement implies that 140 articles have been deleted. Several dozen articles related to Guantanamo have been challenged. Less than a dozen have been deleted. Several times as many discussions resulted in keep or no consensus. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to the nominator's "Either that or list all inmates." comment, pointing out that currently Wikipedia seems to have done the latter. I was not trying to say a large number had been deleted--if you add the ~150 articles in the Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list and sub-cats, to the ~640 in the main cat, it seems WP has articles on darn near all detainees. Shawisland (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of these articles was started by one editor: the creator of this entry that is currently up for AfD. Although I can't speak on behalf of other editors, I believe that this may be a contributing factor to the recurring concerns of WP:COAT. BWH76 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if other participants here confined themselves to content, not personalities.
I would appreciate it if those who claim some portion of the coatrack essay applies here would state which clause(s) those would be. I take others concerns seriously. But, I can't do that when those who have a concern can't or won't explain what the concern is. Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet standards of WP:BLP. The majority of the sources listed are not independent, reliable sources (as they are US military documents), and there are no independent reliable sources for which Al Marwa’i is the subject. After doing some research on this individual, the sources I've found only mention Al Marwa’i's name (aside from the primary sources listed) is in the context of lists of detainees (which falls under trivial coverage); nothing focuses on him. This AfD is similar to this one and this one, both of which were deleted for the same reasons: no independent, reliable sources. BWH76 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Yemen Times, the Gulf News and the Yemen Observer all have an article about him...how exactly are they not independent media outlets? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you've found something I've not, each of these articles only mention his name. Simply a mention of one's name in an article does not constitute significant coverage. He is not the focus of these or any other articles. If you have found sources in which he is the subject of the coverage (or any other significant independent coverage), please add them to the Wikipedia entry and I would be happy to reconsider! Until then, based upon the research I've done on him, this entry does not meet WP:BLP. BWH76 (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you discount the value of the US documents and assert they fail to measure up to the requirements of WP:BLP? You assert that they are "military documents". The Designated Civilian Official has described the staff of his Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants as a mixture of civlilans and military. The Summaries of Evidence memos are based on other documents from a mixture of civilan and military agencies. The CIA, FBI and State Department are civilian agencies -- not military agencies. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OARDEC files do not constitute independent, reliable sources as was discussed ad nauseum in this AfD which resulted in delete. They are primary sources. BWH76 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no offense, but summaries of other sources, are, by definition, secondary sources, not primary sources.
BLP requires us to be responsible about what we say about living people. Unreferenced allegations are out. But I believe it is a misinterpretation of the policy to argue that allegations have to be verified before they can be repeated in an article. May I remind everyone that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". That the allegations have been made is verifiable.
Yes, the earlier {{afd}} records challengers claiming US documents were not reliable, or were not independent. It records those challengers being asked to explain how they arrived at that opinion. It seems to me that some of those challengers were quoting the wikipolicy documents whose authority they called on from memory, because, the wikipolicy documents didn't actually say what some challengers said they said. Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that you may still have a fundamental misunderstanding of OARDEC and the administrative documents they produced. These documents were produced with the explicit purpose of judging detainees to determine whether they remain at Guantanamo or may be released. Were OARDEC members present to witness the actions for which detainees have been accused? Of course not. Do these documents have a specific, direct bearing on the detainees on whom they focus? Unquestionably - this is the explicit reason for which they were produced. In other words, these OARDEC documents, in fact, are part of the origin of the subject. They are not part of the origin of the accusations which led to the detention, they are part of the origin of the subject's continued detention.

Additionally, for more explanation on why these documents cannot be considered independent, third-party sources, I again recommend reading this AfD.BWH76 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are agreed that the "Summary of Evidence" memos were summarized, from multiple source documents, prepared by civilian and military intelligence analysts, for the officers who were to make a recommendation as to whether the captives should continue to be detained. So what? In what way does this demonstrate that they are fail to measure up the requirements for reliability, or independence?
Are you trying to suggest that the contents of the "Summary of Evidence" memos are unreliable because they weren't written by eye-witnesses?
You use the phrase "are part of the origin" three times above. I'd really like to try to understand what point you are trying to make here. Is it possible you could replace this phrase? In the context in which you used it I find it opaque. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is exactly the sourcing we need for these articles--the newspapers of the person's area. The documents, are reliable for the allegations against him. They are of course not reliable for what he actually may have done, but they are not being used that way. DGG (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, as I wrote above, please include these sources in the article. I have tried to find these articles, but I've not found any significant coverage. Until there are any independent, reliable sources which focus on Al Marwa’i, this Wiki entry should be deleted. BWH76 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than another arbitrary article about an arbitrary Gitmo detainee. I'm assuming good faith that this string of articles is not being created as a coatrack, but the assumption's being stretched. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment confuses me. I would appreciate an explanation of how this article is "arbitrary". I would appreciate a dialog as to which clause(s) of the coatrack essay respondent thinks is being ignored. I just took another look at the coatrack essay. And I don't see how it lapses from the advice of the author of that essay.
- People read these articles. People cite these articles, as in this recent example:
  - "U.S. military says ex-Gitmo prisoner carried out suicide attack in Iraq". USA Today. May 5, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
- Thanks for being able to exercise good faith, and engage in dialog. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel that this growing series of articles is being used to draw attention to the plight of those who are detained, unjustly or otherwise, in GTMO, rather than to document their life and actions, which is what their article should (only) do. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that if GTMO was closed down in the morning and everyone sent home it would improve the world drastically, but I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for that information. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to be clear -- your concern then, with this particular article, is not based on a perception it lapses from compliance with any official wikipolicies or guidelines?
    - You and I seem to be in complete agreement that this article should not take a stand on whether Towfiq's Guantanamo detention was just or unjust. To do so, in article space, would be editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV. But, for the record, this article does not lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV. For the record, if someone had a concern that one or more passage(s) lapsed from compliance with WP:NPOV the deletion policy recommend that correct response would be to raise the concern on the talk page -- not article deletion.
    - You wrote: "...rather than to document their life and actions, which is what their article should (only) do...." Well, it seems to me that this article does document what we know of Towfiq's life and actions -- and thus it not only complies with policy, but with your extra-policy concern.
    - Originally, most captives in Guantanamao were Afghans, then Saudis. Almost half the captives were from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. But most Afghans and Saudis have been repatriated. Only about ten percent of the Saudis remain. Now Yemenis comprise more than a third of the remaining captive. Only a dozen or so Yemenis have been repatriated.
    - Towfiq is one of those few Yemenis who was repatriated. There are reports of a former Guantanamo captive named Tawfiq standing trial. I haven't added that information to the article (yet). And I won't do so unless I can confirm it is the same guy. However, it almost certainly is the same guy. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfiyq is how I'd spell it, but I'm nonstandard! (That's pretty much how it is written in Arabic, the consonants and semivowels written are TaWFiYQ, and I added the two vowel marks a and i.) It's a very common name. All the spellings given have been the same name in Arabic: Taufiq, Tawfiq, Towfiq, Toufiq. The most standard transliteration is Tawfiq. Don't ask me why the standard doesn't write the "Y" which makes the pronunciation clear. (It rhymes with "eek," not with "ick.") The last name, I would write al-Marwa'iy, which means "the person from Marwa," the terminal -iy, (meaning "person from") usually written in transliteration as just "i," if preceded by a vowel, will have a preceding glottal stop before, i.e., the apostrophe, which some sources seem to omit. That title could be a family name, i.e., an ancestor came from Marwa. (I don't speak Arabic, I just read Qur'anic Arabic, so ... I may easily err, I'm just letting you know that the names are the same.)--Abd (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (This one with similar) These articles, as they are, do seem like Coatracks to me. Much of each article is repetitive. However, this distracts the core issue: Is the specific subject notable? If so, there are sufficient sources, of sufficient reliability, to justify some article, properly done. It might be brief. It seems that the available sources are already listed, but a problem is that the article seems to be a complete compilation of what is in the sources, whereas it might be more appropriate to link to the sources and give only bare highlights; and, if this is the case, many of these articles might be merged. Presently, many details only peripherally related to the subject of the article are in each article. (For example, all the detainees from Yemen might be merged, and only specially notable ones would have their own article. The Yemen detainee article would include the details about negotiations with the Yemen. Those with independent articles would be ones where there are other sources that discuss the specific subject in depth, independently from the military documents and lists or brief mentions in news reports. The conclusion I came to is that all the detainees are notable, by virtue of being a very famous set of detainees, though not necessarily sufficiently notable to have each his own article, and, especially the individual detainee articles shouldn't belabor the overall issue, each one repeating at length the same redundant information. These issues are far too complex to resolve in an AfD, rather, consensus should be sought among interested editors or through RfC etc. I actually started this with a Delete !vote.... To bring these articles to standards, to remove the coatrack aspect, will take quite a bit of work. I'm not willing to invest it and then see the article deleted, been there, done that. If this article survives AfD, I intend to work with other editors involved to clean them up. I'm not interested in coatracking, but I am interested in Wikipedia having clear and clean coverage of the topic.--Abd (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what I find they need in this regard is to decrease or eliminate the more or less constant sections at the top, along with the image of the hearing room--a valid editing question. But some of this was done to show the great importance of the subjects here, in that the people were involved as individual objects in extremely noteworthy events of world wide significance, and that therefore onevent did not apply. If this could be accepted, there should be no problem in shortening he articles appropriately, but it seems to be argued afresh every single time. DGG (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I like to take on what seem to me to be easy questions and issues, even if to others it seems I'm baying at the moon.... I found this, though, uncommonly difficult. Here is the problem. Without independent review of the situation of each prisoner, extracting what is particularly notable is a form of synthesis, unless we go all the way down to a bare stub, in which case we are better off with a merge. On the other hand, we do it all the time through selection of sources and facts to present in articles, when sources aplenty exist, and the defacto standard is that the editors come to consensus. I'm surprised to find no independent *discussion* except for a few of the prisoners; my guess is that there *are* sources. In Yemen for this guy, for example, or elsewhere in the Arabic media. If I could read Arabic well, that's where I'd look! On the other hand, it seems he may still be in custody, last report, 2007, he was one of two not yet cleared and released) and the Yemeni government may simply not be talking about it. But where was he from? Where is his family? I *think* al-Marwa'i is a family name. But it might have been a nom de guerre, Marwa is a very special place in Islam. I'm uncomfortable with Wikipedia simply being a repeater for a source of official information, given how Wikipedia is structured. (I'm a radical inclusionist, but, to me, radical inclusion requires far better sysems of categorization according to notability than we have; simply making Wikipedia into an echo isn't doing much encyclopedic work. But the official documents aren't searchable, they seem to be scans, and by converting them to text, we do make the knowledge (of the accusations and reports) more accessible. The more I looked, the more complicated it got.) --Abd (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (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.

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. In future AfDs of this type, it might be better to consider the notability of each detainee individually, as it has not always been clear in this discussion whom we're talking about. That contributes to our failure to arrive at a consensus here. Sandstein 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri[edit]

Delete Articles do not meet WP:BIO as there are no independent secondary sources. There are a few inclusions of these individuals in lists of detainees in independent sources, but no sources focus exclusively on either. These entries in Wikipedia are similar to this AfD, this AfD, and this AfD, all of which were deleted in that the military documents used to justify the above-nominated articles are not independent, secondary sources. Additionally, the deletion of the first article was endorsed after review. I've done research to find more information about the subjects of these articles; I found nothing except trivial mentions. BWH76 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and precedent. It sounds crazy, but being held in extrajudicial detention by the U.S. just doesn't make one necessarily notable anymore. "O tempora o mores! In light of some of the comments below, I agree with keep. I didn't look into things as carefully as I should have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both searching for both names through the net and google books, turns up no mentions of them at all, I would presume that they are not notable and fail notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 10:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Disclaimer, I started both these articles.

In January I went to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, and WP:BLP/Noticeboard, and asked for opinions on whether the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for Guantanamo captives Tribunals should be considered secondary sources. Both of these articles reference Summary of Evidence memos, prepared particularly to document the reasons they were being held by the USA. On January 24 2008 my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:

For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic effort...

I offered a detailed reply. And my correspondent concluded.

Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

Of course participants here are entitled to disagree with the opinions expressed in WP:RS/Noticeboard. But I don't think anyone can say the assertion that these sources are primary sources, that fail to measure up to policy requirements is so obvious it does not require explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This specific argument has been addressed repeatedly in the previous AfD's listed in the nomination, and most recently by this administrator (on his/her talk page). Furthermore, it is the rebuttal of the above opinion that led to each deletion. Military documents specifically produced to determine the continued detention of the subjects of these articles are considered primary sources. BWH76 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree that the questions I raised were adequately addressed in the earlier {{afd}}. If our nominator, or anyone else, thinks there have been meaningful response to my attempts to get outside informed opinions in the WP:RS and WP:BLP noticeboards as to whether these sources were primary or secondary sources, then I would encourage them to summarize or paraphrase those counter-arguments here.

Regarding the comments of that closing administrator... In the interests of brevity I only provide counter-arguments in an {{afd}} to arguments other participants actually made in that {{afd}}. We entrust administrators with considerable authority. We authorize them to delete articles they think meet the criteria for speedy deletion, on their sole judgment. But, when they conclude an {{afd}} I believe it can be a mistake to base their concluding statements on arguments that were not made in that particular {{afd}}. I think doing so can be unfair to those making a case for "keep", because it does not allow them an opportunity to make a counter-argument. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the creator of the article has asked me to withdraw nomination of one of these two articles, stating on my talk page that "it is in [my] interest" to do so based upon some "informal 'one at a time' rule."1 Additionally, the article creator writes that "some participants will regard multiple nominations as a form of harrassment [sic]."2 I don't agree with this opinion and wanted to disclose this here so that all info relating to specific AfD's should be kept on the individual AfD page. BWH76 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did suggest BWH consider withdrawing one {{afd}} because I thought he or she was making a series of similar, but distinct {{afd}}s. Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are precedents, and the obvious logic that not all terrorists and detainees are notable by themselves. Vishnava (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the last few days news accounts about the dropping of charges and the refusal of military lawyers to proceed with cases, a good deal more information will soon be forthcoming about the individual people. DGG (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator is being dishonest in his claim of "precedence" since there are just as many similar articles that he has nominated for deletion that have ended in "Keep" and "NC" votes. He seems determined to simply nominate all 900 articles for deletion to get half of them randomly deleted, and those that end in "Keep" votes are re-nominated until they are deleted. The subject of the article launched al-Mudhafarri v. George Bush, his tribunal was followed by UC Davis. al-Zahri was quoted fairly extensively by Andy Worthington in media stories, and the Associated Press Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The person quoted in in the above-mentioned article by Andy Worthington is not the same person as the subject of one of the nominated articles. The person in Worthington's article is Abdul Rahman al-Zahri, a Saudi who said he would have been "honored" to have participated in September 11. The subject of the nominated article is Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri from Yemen. BWH76 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the same person, "Abd al Rahman" is "Abdulrahman", if you read the al-Zahri article before nominating it for deletion, you'd see he was the one who said he'd have been "honoured", and there is only one al-Zahri in Guantanamo Bay - don't muddy the issue by claiming media sources don't count because they transliterate Arabic names differently, what's next, "Usama bin Laden" and "Osama bin Laden" are separate people? It is quite clear these are the same people, only his nationality is confused in the media article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - there do appear to be striking similarities between the two. If we could resolve the discrepancies, though between the apparent origin between the two (Yemen vs. Saudi Arabia) and also rectify the quotes - the quotes don't match up, nor have I found the quote Worthington cited in court docs - I would reconsider this. As for your personal attacks and assuming bad faith, I've already addressed this conduct previously. BWH76 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found the name "Al Zahri" in any lists of detainees. Where did you find his name?BWH76 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the more clear you make it that you haven't done your research, the less respect I have for your claims that you can speak with authority as to why articles should be deleted. If you want respect, earn it - as long as your conduct remains unchanged, my attitude towards you will remain the same. (The 2007 Associated Press article "Gitmo panels struggle to assess facts" calls him "Abdul al-Rahman" rather than the proper "Abdul Rahman", "Abdulrahman" or "Abd al Rahman" - but then also issues a retraction stating that they had misidentified prisoners as Saudi rather than Yemeni...pretty much proving what I said), if that still doesn't convince you, look up the Septembe 9 2007 article "Hearing transcripts offer rare chance to hear from them" which again quotes al-Zahri. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you please be civil. I do see al Zahri's name mentioned in this article and I see that the AP printed a correction for misidentifying one detainee "al-Wady" as being from Afghanistan instead of Yemen in a previous article - is there something on al Zahri or are you making an assumption that a mistake was made based upon the correction on al-Wady? BWH76 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's be nice, kids. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding names...

Captive 441 was called "Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri" on the 2004 and 2005 memos.
Captive 441 was called "Abdul Rahman Ahmed" on the 2006 memo.

I think it is worth noting that the memos allege that he participated in planning the 9-11 attacks, and that he had knowledge of plans to attack the USA in the future.

The 2006 memo also states he may have spoofed his interrogators, "fabricated" them the stories of involvement with bin Laden, or taking part in the planning of attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the lawsuit. The information needs to be added. This articles should be at least be reviewed to see which ones do fulfill the requirements for sourcing and notability. DGG (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's take stock of the new information that's come to light since I first nominated these articles. First, Sherurcij rightly points out that al Zahri is quoted here and here. In the first, he was the focus of one paragraph. In the second, he was mentioned in one sentence. Although this does help improve the article, I still don't believe it constitutes significant coverage by secondary sources.

Next, the Al-Mudhaffari documents listed above (the two are actually the same thing from 2 different sources) are military documents from a Combat Status Review Trial (to determine continued detention of the subject). These documents are primary sources. UC Davis, unless there is additional information, did not follow this case closely - their website has hundreds of primary source material like this. There is no secondary coverage of this that I have yet found. There is coverage of the fact that many detainees have filed lawsuits naming Bush as the defendant, but not on this individual case. BWH76 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confident respondent is sincere in his or her assertion these are primary sources. But that they were compiled from documents from multiple agencies, including the CIA, the FBI, the CITF, and the office of the DASD-DA, and possibly the State Department, foreign government intelligence services, and other agencies, makes them secondary sources. In the interest of complying with the recommendations that wikipedians engage in dialog when they disagree, I would really appreciate an explanation why the multiple sources reviewed in the preparation of the memos do not mean they are secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respondent is correct that some captives launched cases that name George W. Bush. Respondent is mistaken when he or she looked at Abdelqadir Al Mudhaffari v. George W. Bush and did not recognize that it was a package of documents generated because lawyers acting on Abdelqadir's behalf named George W. Bush. My understanding is that all of the documents in that suit are public, in that any member of the public can access them. Abdelqadir's lawyers appeared before Judge Robertson on November 7 2005, and six weeks later, presumably because Robertson ordered the Executive Branch to release to his lawyers the justification for why Abdelqadir was being held, the package was generated. These documents represent one stage in the exchange of documents in this case. There are other documents connected with this case. We simply haven't found them online, yet. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll try to explain this one more time. For our purposes here, it is irrelevant what sources OARDEC used to produce it's recommendation on the continued detention of these subjects. They could have used coloring books, bits of string, and astronomical predictions to form their recommendation, but it doesn't matter in establishing that OARDEC files are primary sources. The documents that this military organization produced were specifically and explicitly produced to make a judgment on Guantanamo detainees - these military documents were the basis of the detainees' continued detention. This is why the previous AfDs I cited in my nomination resulted in delete.
  - Regarding the al Mudhaffari court documents: basing an article's notability on documents that a Wikipedian may find in the future clearly does not meet our standards. More importantly, even if we were to find and reference every single court document regarding this case, it would not make a difference since court documents are primary sources. Basing an article exclusively on primary sources, especially for biographies of living people, does not meet Wikipedia standards. BWH76 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am afraid I feel I have to repeat a point I made earlier. Respondent continues to assert the references are "primary sources". By definition, a secondary sources is one that summarizes and synthesizes other documents. The Summary memos, are "secondary sources", by definition. With the best will in the world I can not make head or tail of the analogy with coloring books in the preceding comment.
    - Respondent points out that the proceedings had a purpose -- to make recommendations about the captive's status. This is absolutely correct. And the memos had a purpose too, to provide information to the officers making those recommendations about the captive's status. But EVERY well-written document has a purpose. Having a purpose does not make a document a primary source.
    - Regarding the existing references to Abdelqadir Al Mudhaffari v. George W. Bush, two of these references are extremely brief, and can only serve to supplement references that are more informative. However, the articles do have references that fully comply with the wikipedia's policies, that are more informative. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. They fail the WP:BIO standard. They have not recieved significcant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Moreover, one article, which includes a long speech given by the prisoner is a blatant WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The articles overemphasis of the prison situation is a blatant WP:COATRACK and violation of WP:UNDUE. These problems combined with the higher standard required for WP:BLP point to an obvious deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's overemphasis on the prison situations, but that's certainly call to edit and improve the article, not delete it entirely. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one single point I am going to acknowledge that Brewcrewe is absolutely correct. Repeating the long oral statement was a mistake -- an inadvertent lapse, from an over-tired contributor. I've moved it to wikisource. Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked WP:BIO many times. I believe the references these articles use fully comply with WP:BIO.

Suggestion above of "blatant WP:NOT#MEMORIAL" must be some kind of mistake -- both of these guys are still alive -- so obviously there is no memorial here.

WP:COATRACK has a dozen subheadings. I really believe anyone who states they have a concern over WP:COATRACK really owes it to the rest of us to be specific as to how it lapses.

Could these concerns hold merit? Sure -- if those who had them would spell out what they were. But even then I don't believe that deletion would be in order. I don't believe that is what the policies recommend. I believe that specific discussion on the talk page would be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2008 (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.

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 (non-admin closure). None of the parties to this discussion disagree that there are multiple sources in independent publications about Rebecca Snyder; the question of her notability hinges on whether those sources are trivial mentions only related to one client, or if, instead, they demonstrate clear, durable notability. A strong consensus is established below that the coverage does in fact add up to notability that exceeds the standards of WP:N. This article is currently not a coatrack for Khadr; despite most of Snyder's notability deriving from this one event, the article is focused on her. Darkspots (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca S. Snyder[edit]

Is not notable, per WP:N. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Bstone (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I started this article, about half an hour ago. I am still working on it. Nominator placed a speedy deletion tag on it, four minutes after I started it. I challenged that tag. I want to assume good faith, but I am afraid I really can't reconcile a nomination for deletion so shortly after the article was started with the wikipedia's stated goal of reaching decisions through consensus -- not turning the wikipedia into a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree here, both in terms of overzealous use of WP:CSD#A7 and also with AfDing articles so very quickly after they are created. ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, she is a notable lawyer who has taken on one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years. Notability is certain. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. e.g. this search. Individual is thus notable per WP:N (disclosure - I declined the original speedy by the nom) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the hits in the foregoing link refer to her. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the first link technically links to multiple sources - perhaps not my finest piece of external linking Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely passes WP:N (added by User:Legotech)
Keep Even the incomplete version that was originally tagged as a speedy had sources from major newspapers in two countries. . DGG (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Omar_Khadr Vote changed from keep after doing some fact-checking; this article looks more and more like a WP:Coatrack.Certainly not "one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years", not even one of the more notable cases on the court's docket that day but she is notable. L0b0t (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) L0b0t (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frizpoll. A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has not recived signifiant coverge. Any coverage that mentions her, mentions her in passing as part of coverage of Omar Khadr. Notability is not inhereted. Moreover (and consequently) this article looks like a WP:COATRACK for Omar Khadr.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article is short it seems adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable. ~~If nothing much more can be added that's notable, though, it may be cleaner to merge it to Omar Khadr.~~ (scratch that last bit, Omar Khadr is long enough as it is. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not impressed with Bstone's CSD tagging. The article is by an established editor, and it demonstrates notability beyond question. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tagging this non-notable article is at issue, not your personal attitude to me nor your personal attitude to the author of the article. Please keep that in mind when you opine in an AfD. Bstone (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he is free to offer you constructive criticism, as others in this AfD have, that you acted too hastily and did not assume good faith when an established editor with thousands of edits created a new article. Rather than clean up the article yourself, wait to see the finished product, or ask him to add more references or detail, you immediately jumped to calling for its deletion. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I disagree with Geo Swan's criticism of the nomination. Contributors should start new articles on their own hard drives or user pages and work on them there. Post them to the namespace only when they can survive AfD. Once it was posted, Bstone was entitled to assess it immediately for notability. JamesMLane t c 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And according to WP:N, "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No actual deletion rationale. No reasoning as to why article doesn't meet WP:N. --Smashville^BONK! 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there seem to be no references to the subject of the article apart from her connection to a single case for which she is one of the co-counsels. The only references that mention her outside the context of the Khadr case are directories of attorneys (where she can be found alongside all the other lawyers in the U.S.A.). While the Khadr case is certainly worthy of an article, notability is not inherited and it does not follow that one of his attorneys is notable enough to have an article without some notability of her own unconnected to the Khadr case. Another issue facing this article is that it looks like a coatrack for Khadr. Use of POV language like "captive" rather than the actual designation "detainee" or even the vulgate "prisoner"; there was even an unattributed pull quote dropped willy-nilly into the middle section. None of that has any place in an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "captive" and "prisoner" are both more neutral than the sanitized "detainee" which is a recent invention created for a specific purpose. But again, that's an issue for the talk page, not an AfD. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Notable counsel, I too would tend to disagree with critics who say it was nominated for sppedy and AfD to quick.BigDunc^Talk 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't find any indications that she is not notable, and certainly the nom doesn't elaborate upon anything. Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article, so can't support nomination for deletion that doesn't even support itself. --Blechnic (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (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.

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.

The consensus established in this AfD is in line with previous discussions that have held that Guantanamo detainees that have not received substantial coverage from reliable sources – excluding the US government agencies involved in their detention – are not notable. The arguments made by GeoSwan and DGG here are not sufficiently strong to make me disregard that consensus:

The secondary sourcing requirement of WP:N seeks, inter alia, to ensure that someone who is in a position to do so has made a decision whether the subject is worthy of particular note or not (because we do not want to cover every person on the planet). Few if any editors here are willing to accept the files produced by various US authorities as sufficient coverage for that purpose. The reason for this is that these government agencies, even if independent from one another, have not produced files about the detainee because they consider him to be a particularly noteworthy individual, but because he is in their detention and they have to process him as part of their official duties, whether they want to or not. In addition, due to these agencies' own involvement with the detention process as described in the article, their files are best characterised as primary sources, not as secondary ones.

Regarding the hypothetical that, if an American were to be detained in Guantanamo, he'd be considered notable: I presume that in this case, there would be US press coverage about him, causing him to pass WP:N.

If the article can indeed be sourced further at some point in the future, as DGG suggests, then it can be restored at that date. Per WP:N, the mere mention of the name in sources does not suffice; there must be significant coverage about the man himself. In the meantime, I second Dhartung's suggestion that a dedicated Wiki may be a better place to cover Guantanamo detainees that are not individually notable in Wikipedia's terms.

A relisting is not appropriate because there has been ample participation and it seems that no important new developments that would need further discussion have occurred towards the end of the AfD. Sandstein 09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)[edit]

Is this a biographical article? It looks more like a WP:COATRACK to me. Either way, the article also fails as the person is only notable for one event anyhow (WP:BLP1E). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Actually, it appears that this person is not even notable for one event; none of the secondary sources I saw listed in the article mentioned him by name, only the OARDEC documentation of his detention and trial, which I would consider a primary source, mentions him. If it turns out that his detention in specific is mentioned in secondary sources, then it would be reasonable to keep this article, as it is more an article about the event (his detention) than the person. But as of now, there is no notability established here. — λ (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several other participants have cited Lambda's observation in their own comment. Well, since Lambda made this comment I found additional sources, and incorporated them in the article.
  - Andy Worthington (October 2007). The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison. Pluto Press. pp. pages 180. ISBN 978-0-7453-2665-8. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
  - Alexandra Olson (January 23, 2005). "Detainee Has Last Guantanamo Panel Review" (PDF). The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-06-03.

Delete per nom. Although Guantanomo Bay detainee camp is notable, it doesn't mean that every one of the 800+ detainees are notable. Notability is not inhereted. There's no evidence that this person has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, therefore falling far short of meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lambda -- definite WP:COATRACK problem, and besides the subject is not as notable as the article purports to be. Xihr (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've previously suggested that the editors documenting the detainees (and all the lawyers and tribunal judges and such) could start a Wikia to do so without notability limitations. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambda and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. Salaam is in substantially the same situation as Ajam -- the independent sources used in his Wikipedia article don't mention him at all, meaning that the article is really sourced only to documents relating to his detention and its review, which can't establish notability. A Google search was unsuccessful because "Abdul Salaam" is a common name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since reviewed the Olson article linked above and the excerpt from the Worthington book, both of which have been made available since my previous comment. They don't change my opinion that Salaam is non-notable. The Olson article doesn't even mention Salaam by name -- I assume that the 30-year-old Afghan hawala operator it refers to is him, but someone who had read the original article only would not have known it had any connection to Salaam. The Worthington book has only three sentences devoted to Salaam and two of his relatives, in a book which is intended to cover every single Guantanamo detainee. This isn't a WP:BLP1E. This is a WP:BLP0E -- a biography of a living person notable for no events. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I am concerned over what I see as a conflation here between "noteworthiness" and "notoriety"/popularity. The first paragraph of WP:BIO states:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

It seems to me that WP:BIO is clear. It does not require notoriety/popularity. It merely requires that there be something unusual enough to deserve attention. There are lots of topics that merit coverage here where there is no, and never will be, any press coverage. If the wikipedia is going to be comprehensive it is going to have to cover lots of topics that aren't notorious/popular.

Thought experiment -- if the paragraph Worthington wrote about Abdul Salaam had been written about an American would it even occur to anyone to challenge it? I suggest it would not. (1) Being picked up in a random sweep; (2) held for years in a secret detention camp; (3) released years later, with no explanation. If we had an article about an American in this position, I doubt anyone would challenge it. Aren't all the captives in the same position as Abdul Salaam? No. Only one other captive's memos justified his detention because he worked for a hawalla. Hawalas were suspect because there was an unsubstantiated meme floating around that the funds that supported 9-11 hijackers had been transferred to them through a hawala called al Barakat. However the 911 Commission found that all the funds transferred to them had been sent via ordinary US banks.

WRT BLP0E Respondent, above, describes Abdul Salaam as someone known for zero events. Most of BLP is devoted to protecting the privacy of the subjects of our articles. The BLP1E sections seems to have been grafted on as an afterthought. And I think this discussion illustrates a weakness of this section. Deciding when something is just one event, or several events, is an entirely POV judgment call. I listed ~~four~~ five events the references document. I'd be grateful if respondent stated why the events I listed weren't separate events.

Taking BLP1E seriously? -- In another discussion another wikipedian suggested that the article on Tony Blair be merged with the George W. Bush article -- because no one would have ever heard of him, if he hadn't supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Their joke makes a good point. There is no good absolute dividing line between what should be considered multiple events, instead of one event. I think this section is so open to misinterpretation it should be removed from BLP, where it doesn't fit, to some other place. It is so open to misinterpretation I question whether it belongs in policy space at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article.

I disagree that this article is a violation of BLP1E.

Captured in a routine sweep of his local bazaar in May 2002.
Sent to Guantanamo in October 2002.
Faced the very last of the 558 CSR Tribunals in January 2005, where he was accused of transferring funds for al Qaeda.
His CSR Tribunal was particularly described by a DoD spokesman -- who explicitly obfuscated his name. Keeping the identity of captives secret is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions.
During his first annual Review Board he faced only four factors justifying his detention. This is very unusual -- unlike what other captives experienced. Practically every other captive faced more allegations during their annual reviews than they did during their initial CSR Tribunal. Most faced at least twice as many allegations. One captive faced six times as many allegations second time around.

Please bear in mind that the Guantanamo captives were described as "the worst of the worst", and various similar description, by senior cabinet members of DoD officials. I suggest that anyone, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who almost everyone will agree is one of "the worst of the worst" merits coverage here.

And, I suggest that other captives, who faced allegations justifying their detention that may not clearly establish they were "the worst of the worst" also merit coverage. I don't think it is our role, as wikipedia contributors, to decide whether the allegations are credible for our readers. I think our readers are entitled to reach their own conclusions about the credibility of the allegations, and to reach their own conclusion as to whether those allegations really support descriptions like "the worst of the worst".

Some commentators above have made comments that suggest they may not understand that there are multiple separate, independent agencies here. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), set up in early 2002, was responsible for the captive's interrogation, detention, medical care, mail from home. The Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC), set up in July 2004, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush, had the responsibility of formally confirming earlier secret determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants". Part of OARDEC's responsibilities was to independently review the evidence against each captive, and prepare "Summary of Evidence" memos, for the officers charged with making the recommendation. And in doing so they reviewed reports prepared by the CIA, FBI, CITF and the office of DASD-DA. It is my opinion that this fully satisfies the policy requirements that sources be "independent secondary sources". I know some people think they don't satisfy the requirements because they are not "media sources". But this is a misconception. The policies don't require sources be "media sources".

WRT WP:COATRACK -- it lists about a dozen different criteria. I've reviewed its recommendations recently, and I can't honestly see that this article lapses from any of those criteria. One of the criteria in COATRACK talks about "wongo juice" -- the article that is nominally about one thing, but quickly diverges, and spends most of its bytes talking about some other topic, which the COATRACK author called "wongo juice". Now, if this article were to diverge from talking about Abdul Salaam, and spent most of its bytes talking about Guantanamo detention, in general, then Guantanamo detention would be the "wongo juice". But I don't believe this article does this. Yes, there is material in this article that is similar to other articles. But, I regard that material as necessary context. You will find other related sets of articles, like the articles on the chemical elements, also have material in common. It would be possible to strip out all common material from the articles on the chemical elements -- at the cost of leaving them essentially useless for anyone who didn't already have a PhD in chemistry.

WRT WP:NOTINHERITED -- I believe this challenge is based on a misconception. Challenger acknowledged the Guantanamo camp is notable. And, similarly, San Quentin, Devil's Island and Leavenworth are notable. There are differences between the captives in those other facilities and the Guantanamo captives. (1) The captives in those other famous facilities have not had Cabinet members repeatedly label them as "the worst of the worst", "very bad men", and "terrorists"; (2) Captives ended up in those other facilities through the normal, routine, well-established, well-understood procedures of a criminal justice system -- one with established rules of evidence and established rules of procedure. When there is something unprecedented about a captive in one of those other facilities, we have an article about him or her. And, when there is something outside of the routine about one of the captives in one of those other facilities, we cover them. The USA imprisons thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals charged with, or convicted of murder. And we have articles about practically none of them. But we have articles on guys who stand out, like Willie Horton or Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. I've written about this further, here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to COATRACK -- this document doesn't, generally, recommend deletion as the answer to a perception of COATRACK. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability as demonstrated by the lack of coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications. RFerreira (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate an explanation of this phrase: "...coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications." I thought I was familiar with the relevant policies. I don't recognize this phrase. If it is from an existing policy I would be very grateful to have that passage drawn to my attention. My google search doesn't find the phrase "multiple and non-trivial independent publications"' anywhere on the project. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to Google the phrase. This little box sits on the top of the WP:BIO policy page:

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.

---brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin -- Please note that the paraphrase of policy offered above is distinct from the direct quote from the WP:BIO guideline. Please note that I have explained why I believe these references fulfill the requirements of policy, and no one has offered a counter-argument. It is often repeated that these discussions aren't votes. It is my understanding that these are supposed to be meaningful discussions, where there is a civil exchange of opinions -- working towards reaching a consensus. It is my understanding that closing admins have the authority and responsibility to discount and ignore opinions that do not, in their opinion, comply with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not sure how WP:BLP1E would apply in this case, because the person doesn't seem to be notable at all amongst the crowds of hundreds of other detainees, and as mentioned by Lambda this person isn't even mentioned by name in secondary sources. I think Dhartung is on the right track with the suggestion of creating a Wikia website for this type of thing, if that's what you're interested in. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked this commentator to help me out by helping me understand what I should have done when I found additional references that specifically mentioned Abdul Salaam -- so he or she would have recognized that Lambda's criticism no longer applied. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting the period of this discussion be extended to allow more time for debate. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Geo Swan for your message. I have reviewed the available sources and my belief remains that this person does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Sorry, JBsupreme (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is probably sourceable further from sources in the country & languages concerned. I am saying this on the presumption that all of them will be regarded as martyrs and heroes by their supporters & subjects of interest from their countrymen. Our excluding this probably represents systematic bias. I can understand people wanting to delete them until this can actually be established, but I think our information should be preserved here in the interim. That there are hundreds of people in the same position is irrelevant to Wikipedia--if there's any generally accepted principle here, it's NOT PAPER. There is more individualized information than would fit into a list. But I do suggest that some of the common elements be removed--they do give an unfortunate impression of coatrack, and it would help to avoid that.. DGG (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (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.

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 per consensus and attempted withdrawal of nomination by originator. (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boudella el Hajj[edit]

Delete as non-notable. He's like the natalie holloway of the war on terror; his individual bio is irrelevant to the larger forces at play here. JeanLatore (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, wp:blp1e. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this man's main claim to fame is that he is one of the numerous Guantanamo detainees, he doesn't have much of a claim to fame. At least not enough to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have to disagree, his case seems to have created considerable concern in Bosnia and her wife has made a campaign that seems quite notable for him (she's been interviewed by Germany's most weekly, it seems, Dar Spiegel). Also, interest has often resurfaced, judging it by google news. He's certainly more notable than most Quantano innmates; as for the nominator's motivation, calling it weak is quite an understatement.--Aldux (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the Guantanamo Bay detainees have articles - see List of Guantánamo Bay detainees. That's not a comment on this particular article, nor an invocation of WP:OSE, just an observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, while convincing arguments have been made in the past in favour of deleting some articles about detainees in the war on terror, el-Hajj seems to be generating both English and non-English media attention justifying notability, and has plenty of federal government documents justifying verifiability. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received considerable coverage in reliable sources. Which is the standard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I continue to believe the majority of the detainee articles should be merged; the evidence Aldux found indicates that this is one of the ones who merits an individual article. The current article, however, does not evidence that, and I hope that Aldux will actually go improve the article. GRBerry 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you hope that the article will be improved then why don't you do it rather than demand that someone else does the work? Aldux has already shown you where to find the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even the most cursory news search would have turned up significant external coverage in English - not counting the considerable Bosnian and Arabic coverage of this man. This is a question you should be asking the nominator, not me. In any case, I've added significant coverage to external links. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't ask you. I asked GRBerry in response to the statement "I hope that Aldux will actually go improve the article". I agree that the same question could be asked of the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably almost all the detainees will eventually have the sources found for individual articles, once the national sources for their countries of origin are investigated. enough has been found already for this particular article. Given what's been shown, I urge the nom. to withdraw the afd. DGG (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2008 (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.

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 --JForget 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i

Non-notable Gitmo detainee BradV 01:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I think there may be a case for each detainee to be considered individually notable as there is official reference material (albeit redacted to the point of incomprehensibility) concerning each individual detainee. Guantanamo Bay is one of the most important and controversial detention facilities in the World. Every person in it is claimed to be a significant terrorist threat. That seems like the US Government making a claim of individual notability for each detainee and I think that makes them notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this isn't even one of the "questionable" Detainee articles in my mind. I see strong Verifiability in its many references, and I see third-party media mentions establishing Notability. We have an article on David Milgaard, why wouldn't we have one on al-Subaii? Both were accused of capital crimes and held in prison, and were ultimately found to be innocent. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not sure comparing to David Milgaard is fair. He's highly notable simply because of the massive amount of media coverage he has received over the last 40 years, I get 366 hits for "David Milgaard" at cbc.ca compared to 0 for "Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i" . Most Canadians are well aware of who he is. But that doesn't reduce the case of Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i. Are there media articles discussing the case of Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i? Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article seems biased against the United States' approach to dealing with the Guantanamo Bay 'detainees'. However, this individual seems very notable. We have people on Wikipedia who have been convicted of far less than what this man is accused of, who have received far less media attention, far less political attention, etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Either the vacuousness of the nomination or the strength of the article would be enough to decide to Keep. Put them together, and it's a Strong Keep, maybe even a Snowball Keep. A nominator who couldn't be bothered to make their case beyond making an unsupported assertion shouldn't expect the rest of the community to give the nomination any more weight than they did. The article, however, could stand to be re-formed into a more impartial version of itself. --SSBohio 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you find notable about this guy? How is the article not a complete violation of WP:BLP1E? Specifically this part: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." BradV 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some previous AfDs for articles similar to this one:

Perhaps you will read them and reconsider (or at least rephrase) your !vote. BradV 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman is only notable for one event, Ziad Jarrah is only notable for one event - people consistently misread BLP1E to try and delete valid articles. Its wording is meant to prevent there being articles about "the guy whose truck ran over Paris Hilton's dog" or "the woman who killed her husband in Illinois last week". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For both of those articles there are reliable sources that cover more than just that event. As an example, both of them have an "Early life" section. Can we do that for Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i? BradV 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, detention is Guantanamo is not a single event. It is a long process and part of a larger story that encompasses what the detainee may or may not of done to justify their detention, the manner of their detention and the legal and quasi-legal processes that leads to their release or ongoing detention. After release there is the question of where they are sent to and what happens to them. We are happy to have articles for many hundreds of sportspeople and minor politicians. I think that articles for the detainees would be justifiable if the sources exist to substantiate them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't present any reliable sources, a basic prerequisite for any article. The US Government is neither reliable nor secondary as required by WP:RS. Assuming that reliable sources will be found, which would validate even having this discussion, he is unnotable per WP:BLP1E. He hasn't received any media coverage before he was detained and there's no reason to assume that he'll receive coverage in his life outside of being detained. wp:blp1e was intended for just this case, where a simple unnotable person (among 700 others) is a pawn in an important issue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point. On the one hand the US government is the organisation holding the detainees and almost all of the information we have about them is sourced through the US government. However it is widely accepted that government agencies are RS. If they were not then vast numbers of articles would be left effectively unsourced. How can we resolve this? In my view it is a mistake to regard a government as a single source of information. A government consists of many agencies and releases many types of information and propaganda. A distinction has to be drawn between hard, reliable information like court transcripts, official statistics and budgets all the way through spun information to the often self serving and unreliable statements that politicians make. Although heavily redacted, I think the sources here fall on the reliable end of this continuum and are RS enough to use. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the US Government can be used as a reliable source, but no way for this. They can be trusted to say that there are 254 inhabitants in so-and-so village, because they don't really have a strong incentive to lie. In this case, they are the party charging Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i with the crimes, so there's no way they can be relied on. Assuming arguendo that they are reliable, they aren't secondary, which is another prerequisite. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this and I think that we are both right on this in different ways. Surely we can treat solid factual information from the US government saying that "[person] was detained on [date]" or "[person] was brought before a tribunal on [date] and the result was [whatever]" as RS and make a distinction between that sort of information and "[person] is a dangerous terrorist because of [a list of disputed and/or uncorroborated allegations]", which is clearly not RS. It seems to me that the US government has many agencies speaking with multiple voices, some of which can be considered as reliable secondary sources even when talking about the government's own actions. I do understand why this makes people uncomfortable, and I agree that we need to be very cautious, but I think this is acceptable in principle. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said, and that exactly is the reason for my !vote. The heart of the article, and this person's claim to notability, are his criminal acts. Without the criminal acts we have nothing. So we have an article here about a living person that is being accused of heinous acts and the source that we are using for these "facts" are unreliable. Anybody who has been following the news lately, knows that the US government, in regard to Guantanomo Bay, had no trustworthiness. What we have here is an attack article on an unnotbale person all based on an untrustworthy source. A blatant violation of WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my (limited) experience with the families and legal representatives of Guantanamo detainees, I have never heard anything negative about the detainee's "right to privacy", rather they seem insistent on getting the detainee's story "out there", including what he has been charged with. A system can appear rigged, but that does not mean that an article should not exist about people it accuses, if Gaddafi, Musharaf or Putin had alleged that al-Subai'i had been an assassin sent to kill them - as unlikely as their story would be, we would still have an article on him. If the United States claims he is "the worst of the worst" terrorists, then it may or may not be true - but the article should exist and fairly delineate any known facts about him. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is incorrect. If a person is accused by a Prime Minister of being an assassin out to kill him, it is guaranteed that multiple reliable sources will report on that person. However, one person that is part of an 800-person of so-called bad terrorists is not guaranteed to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. In addition, a Prime Minister-assassin has long-term notability as not to be violative of WP:BLP1E. However, every person in a 800-person group does not have long-term notability beyond a WP:BLP1E. As for your personal knowledge of certain detainees that do want a Wikipedia article, unfortunately, that cannot be taken into consideration. This afd has precedential value to articles about other detainees. Admittedly, some of the detainees might want a Wikipedia article about them to get the "word out there", but there are some that just want to do their time and then go quietly home. They are not interested in having their so-called terrorist activities memorialized permanently in an encyclopedia. They were not notable prior to the accusations, they aren't notable now, and they won't be notable after the issue is settled. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - MfD is not the wrong forum, although WikiProject subpages should normally be discussed on the project's talk page, all project space is within the jurisdiction of MfD; however, deleting a deletion sorting page without raising the issue with the relevant projects/users is not helpful and there is no consensus to delete. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp[edit]

This is too specific of a deletion sorting. There is not much activity on this page and entries on Guantanamo Bay can easily be inserted into Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cuba which isn't even very active itself. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what harm do you think it does to the encyclopedia? It would seem to me the people knowledgeable in the two topics will be quite different,as are the usual deletion concerns. DGG (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it needs to do harm to be deleted? The fact of the matter that not even about 1 article per month is used for the Guantanamo Bay sorting, which really makes it quite inactive compared to the other categories, especially since it hasn't been used since July. I am pretty sure that if someone looking through the Cuba sorting list sees an article that pertains to Guantanamo Bay, they should know how to handle it as such. Tavix (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is specific to Guantanamo Bay detention camp so it has very little to do with Cuba. It is a topical not a geographical sort criterion with currently no obvious existing parent. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is probably the least active deletion sorting category. Too narrow in focus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree with DGG that it could be a useful sorting, but the question is whether it is being used? It has been a while since the project page and its talk page has seen much action. Since the sorting page was created on 24 August 2006, it appears to have been used in 33 deletion discussions per What link's here (an average of 1.4 uses per month). What link's here sorts entries by page creation number (oldid number). A review of what link's here for Guantanamo Bay detainment camp shows that it was last use on 5 July 2008 in this AfD. The use of the sorting page seems to be coming to an end. It might be premature to mark it as histoical. Give the page another three months and if it sees little to no use during that time, then relist at MfD. -- Suntag (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. This is a deletion sorting dispute that should be worked out by interested editors on a relevant talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum - this should have been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting rather than here. It's up to the WP:DELSORT guys how to organise the deletion sorting categories, it's not really a matter for MFD. (Personally though, I'd suggest closing this one as overly specific and probably unnecessary.) Terraxos (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let the sorters hash this out. You never know how many more afds will come, at it'll be there if needed. Synergy 04:19, 18 September 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio. Sandstein 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bechtold[edit]

Her only claim to notability is that she is a member of the United States Court of Military Commission Review a marginally notable government commission. The first reference in the article only includes her name in a list of appointees and the second reference will not load. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and removeComment Consider moving content to stub United States Court of Military Commission Review; this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK.It also lacks contextually important biographical data (Is it WP:BLP that allows for the omission of biographical data from so many BLPs, basic things like birthdays, hometowns nationalities etc?), which would otherwise be redeeming as is the case with Frank J. Williams or Griffin Bell. ~~Actually several of the other judges' articles should be deleted according to this criteria.~~Synchronism (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)(refactor-Synchronism (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

~~Edward G. Beister Jr.~~ Withdrawn.
~~William T. Coleman Jr.~~ Withdrawn.
~~Lisa Schenck~~ Withdrawn.

Merge all articles with United States Court of Military Commission Review. Not enough references to be a standalone article - WP:FORK, per Synchronism. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep ~~Amy Bechtold to United States Court of Military Commission Review and mention her colonelship there~~ per improvements to article. JJL (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Excuse me, but doesn't Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians list professions who should be considered notable -- should be exempted from discussions over whether they are notable?

"People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges."

If the wikipedia encodes official policies and guidelines, isn't it a mistake to ignore them? Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the article asserts her notability as being based on her membership in a commission. There's too little info. there to justify it as a stand-alone article; a redirect maintains it until someone expands it. The minimal info. on her can be merged to the target article. JJL (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Bechtold isn't just a former JAG officer -- She was the Chief Judge of the Air Forces Court of Military Review. in other words -- one of the USAF's very most senior JAG officers. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- One of the justifications offered for deletion was that the nominator had found one of the article's reference had gone 404. Since when has a references going 404 been a justification for deletion of an entire article? Anyhow, multiple sites hosted that article, and the article now cites one from Harvard since the one from MIT went dark. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this nomination calls the United States Court of Military Commission Review a "marginally notable government commission" -- as if everyone agreed that this was an established fact. Well, heck no. When did everyone agree to this? What I think we all need to recognize is that complying with WP:NPOV both prevents us from inserting biased material into articles, based solely on our personal point of view -- it should prevent us from deleting material from the wikipedia based solely on our personal point of view. The Bush administration, in its defense of its Guantanamo policies, have very strongly pushed the interpretation that everything that happens at Guantanamo is mundane, ordinary, predictable, and fully consistent with both the USA's own laws and the USA's international obligations. Congress didn't agree -- that is why it passed the Detainee Treatment Act. The Supreme Court didn't agree -- that is why it over-ruled the Presidency in three separate cases. Many respected experts don't agree. The wikipedia is not the GeorgeWBushopedia. We are not supposed to only cover the Bush administration version of things. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- So, is the background of the individual judges on the Commission significant, worth coverage? Sure. How independent are they? Critics challenged their independence. Critics mocked the unpreparedness of the Court of Military Commission Review. Brownback and Allred surprised everyone when they dropped the charges against both captives who faced charges on 2007-06-04. No one had expected that any appeals would be made to the Court until after sentences had been handed down. The full set of judges for the Court hadn't been appointed. And the Court's rules of operation hadn't been established. Critics ridiculed newly appointed members, members appointed solely because Brownback and Allred had dropped the charges on procedural grounds could used rules of operation that were not yet established and still reach a demonstrably fair decision. Just as this is not the Bushopedia, we shouldn't be taking a stand on the credibility and character of the judges. But, I suggest, what we know about the judges definitely is not of marginal importance. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, historical notability of the Guantanamo military commissions rivals that of Nuremberg and {{Nuremberg Trial judges}} shows that each of them was given an undisputed Wiki article. Often people judge "current" events as though they are less "historic" than past events; and in this case I think it is a mistake. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of notability mostly. I do hope the article will be expanded though. -Synchronism (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The practice for US judges is fairly well established. At the federal level, all US district court judges and their specialized equivalent are notable--there are only a few hundred of them total at any one time. These people here are the approximate equivalents of US federal appeals court judges, who are certainly and unquestionably notable. Bio details can be found and added, but the important part will be their decisions. I don't think judging this depends upon ones political viewpoint even from the Conservopedia standpoint, these people would be clearly notable--especially notable even. From the postulated GWBushopedia, even more so. I wish GeoSwan had not raised that argument. The US judges who are not notable are the ones at the level of US Magistrates. (At the US State level, the practice is that judges of courts of appellate jurisdiction are notable--what they are called varies from state to state & onecannot go by title.) DGG (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (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.

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 no consensus. (default to keep, no BLP issues). Guantanamo inmates aren't automatically notable - of course not - but this one does appear to have enough coverage to scrape through WP:BIO. I believe GeoSwan makes reasonable points here. Black Kite 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami[edit]

While this is a well-written article with a lot of citations, the main summary is that he exists and is held at Guantanamo Bay. Nothing in the article suggests that he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, almost everything in his article suggests that he meets WP:BIO, he is "the worst of the worst" according to the American Vice President, he claims to have been tortured at a CIA black site, still held as a terrorist at Gitmo he likely faces the death penalty as punishment for alleged war crimes...I'd say any notation that he's "not notable" would have to pass a very high standard of evidence. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, we get he's held at GITMO, but "why" is he notable? What's he done that's notable? I think a strong case has been made for deletion at this point.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this comment is based on a serious misconception. While many of our articles are about individuals who have done something, other articles, like that of Alfred Dreyfus or Rodney King concern individuals who had something done to them. Implied in various challengers' comments here is the idea that what has happened to al Hami was obviously routine, mundane, totally precedented, unremarkable. During the late Twentieth Century, and early in this Twenty-first Century a very large number of individuals have been held, secretly, without charge, without a meaningful opportunity to learn why they were being held, without a meaningful opportunity to challenge whatever allegations had been leveled against them, in detention camps where brutality was authorized. If we include Stalin and Mao's Gulags maybe there were as many as 100,000,000 captives held under those conditions. But, if so, 99,999,000 or 99,998,000 of those individuals were held by rigid, brutal, repressive, totalitarian regimes. Dog bites man is unremarkable. Dogs do bite men, occasionally. Man bites dog is much more remarkable. I suggest that captives held by the USA -- once thought to be the archetype of a freedom-loving democracy -- under the conditions usual in a totalitarian despotism -- is highly remarkable. Does this make Al Hami as remarkable as Alfred Dreyfus, whose case is still being debated 100 years later? Unlikely. But who knows -- wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He is remarkable enough that he should be covered here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources do anything to establish notability. In fact, five of the six sources are just primary sources relating to the subject's detention and its review. Having one's detention reviewed is not a sign of notability for a Guantanamo prisoner because every prisoner in Guantanamo has had his status reviewed unless he was released first. The only secondary source used (the article from The Wire) does not even mention the subject. I can't find any evidence that Dick Cheney called Rafiq Al Hami "the worst of the worst", as opposed to calling the Guantanamo prisoners in general "the worst of the worst"; saying that Al Hami personally is "the worst of the worst" would be an example of the Fallacy of division. His claims to have been tortured are just that, claims, and do not have appeared to have received significant news coverage in the United States, his home country of Tunisia, or any other country on earth. (At least, no such coverage has been cited yet.) The factors favoring continued detention -- that is, the factors offered by the U.S. government as a reason to detain him -- don't suggest to me that he would be likely to be sentenced to death for war crimes. Finally, my own search for news coverage of him turned up nothing more significant than a single sentence in an article from Ansa.it: "Un tenue legame con l'Italia esiste anche per un settimo detenuto, Rafiq bin Bashir bin Al Hami, che aveva con se', al momento dell'arresto in Pakistan, un passaporto italiano contraffatto con un visto pachistano, a suo dire acquistato anni fa in Europa per 200 marchi tedeschi." [30] (My translation: A tenuous link with Italy exists also for a seventh detainee, Rafiq bin Bashir bin Al Hami, who had with him at the moment of his arrest in Pakistan a fake Italian passport with a Pakistani visa, which he said he had acquired a year earlier in Europe for 200 German marks.) Please keep any discussion of this AfD here; in the past, AfD discussions for other Guantanamo prisoners have been taken to my talk page, but I'd rather cover it all here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're searching with only Wikipedia's transliteration of his Arabic name. You'll see he's mentioned on National Public Radio, BergenGrassroots, The Financial Times, New York Times, TalkLeft, and a number of others. They range from mere mentions of his name, to actual articles discussing how his case epitomises the problem with the United States having employed Bounty Hunters to track down "suspects", and bringing them people like al-Hami. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails notability. He's mentioned in passing as a detainee, but what has he done that makes him notable?Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the requirement for secondary sources... well, normally, any document which is a compilation, interpretation, or analysis of original sources is recognized as a secondary source. I agree that a transcript of an OARDEC administrative proceeding would be a primary source. The authors of the Summary of Evidence memos, that list the allegations used to justify continuing to detain al Hami, wrote those memos after compiling, synthesizing, interpreting and analyzing reports from multiple civilian and military agencies. It seems to me that this makes those documents secondary sources. I have been told that a different definition of primary source and secondary source should be used when the sources relate to Guantanamo captives. If there is anyone out there who can explain why this should be so, I would appreciate them spelling this out here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to press coverage of his claims of torture -- I don't believe our policies require coverage in the press. Some important topics will never have press coverage. Please note that while we may not be able to find Press coverage of Al Hami's reports of torture, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler took the claim seriously enough to issue an order that all remaining evidence that would substantiate the claims be preserved. Is there some reason you don't regard this as a reliable source -- not a source that confirms he was tortured, but that someone in a position of authority took the claim seriously? She took it seriously, and so should our coverage of the issue. Geo Swan (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, Delete. Guantanamo detainees aren't inherently notable, even if they're used in case studies for the news. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per article refs and Sherurcij's news stories. Whether someone or something has done anything is irrelevant to notability and deletion at wikipedia. What matters is whether there are enough reliable sources to write an informative article, and there appear to be enough.John Z (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can nominator please clarify which part of WP:BIO Andre Dallaire meets? WP:BIO is not policy, it is a sadly-flawed and incomplete attempt to list what specific editors think makes a "good" article. It is subjective, and simply says "In the field of chemistry, this is what we consider notable, in the field of Football, this is what we consider notable". Please don't make a false appeal to authority by claiming articles need to match some random and invisible benchmark set up by a few users anxious to overinflate their own importance by trying to categorise what makes a "good" biographical article. I could just as easily walk around AFDs demanding "Please explain how you think this article deserves to be kept based on User:Sherurcij/ListOfArticlesThatPissMeOff. There's almost zero validity to our current WP:BIO, which is just made to look important by a bunch of users such as yourself throwing it around heftily. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be more useful to try to prove that Al Hami satisfies the basic criteria of WP:BIO ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") as in fact you tried to do above by citing additional sources, rather than trying to get WP:BIO rejected altogether. Wikipedia:Notability (people) may not be policy, but it is a guideline which has been around for over five years and has been cited hundreds and hundreds of times. [31] I wouldn't want to sacrifice this guideline to save one article which might ultimately be determined to satisfy the guideline anyway. I also don't understand how suggesting that another article you created (Andre Dallaire) doesn't satisfy WP:BIO supports this argument; in fact, Andre Dallaire probably does satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, al-Hami was the subject of 30 lines in Andy Worthington's book The Guantanamo Files. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A WP:BLP1E doesn't preclude 30 lines of coverage in a book. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Milgaard is only notable for one event, as is Lee Harvey Oswald, as is William Calley -- BLP1E refers to "a motorist who ran over a child in Essex in 1994", not to alleged terrorists held in illegal gulags. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one bio in WP whose subject's only claim to notability is that he or she was held illegally in a gulag or even a concentration camp. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to the coatrack essay -- it makes some interesting points... but it is a mistake to treat it as a policy, or guideline, when it is neither. The essay does not recommend a nomination for deletion as a first response. It mentions deletion as a last resort, when attempts at civil discussion fail. I suggest that anyone who claims the authority of the coatrack essay as justification for deletion is showing they have not read the essay closely enough to recognize it is not a policy, and to recognize it does not recommend deletion as the appropriate reaction to concerns over the issues it raises. A look at Talk:Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami shows no concerns over this article were ever expressed on its talk page. I've encountered challengers who have challenged material similar to this claiming the authority of coatrack as their justification. It has always seemed to me that it should be a simple matter for those claiming the authority of coatrack to be specific about which section(s) of the essay they thought applied. I am sorry to report I can not remember ever encountering a challenger who claimed the authority of coatrack who was willing to be specific about which section of the essay they thought applied. And let me amplify that real compliance with the essay's advice would require the challenger to try to get their concern addressed through civil discussion on the article's talk page first. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Continued incarceration and the controversy surrounding it is notability enough. I find the protestations of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E unconvincing and unwarranted: editors need to look at the clearly at why this subject is notable, and will see it is not for one event, but a series of related events. Which for example, is the case with Lee Harvey Oswald, who is notable not only for killing JFK, but for being killed himself, and for being the focus of much subsequent conspiranoia and investigation. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: I have undone my closure of this AfD following this message on my talk. Sandstein 10:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article. I have offered my reason for keep in my responses to others' comments. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the circumstances, he does seem notable to me. NoVomit (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not too sure how many Guantanamo detainees have their articles on WP. WP is surely not the place to cover all inmates from all illegal camps in the world. However, the topic "Inmate in Guantanamo" is surely notable and encyclopaedic. As argued for in Anil's Ghost, it is difficult to give visibility to numbers; often, it is a better solution to pick one exemplary case to illustrate the topic. RBBBJAH could be such a case, but the article might be moved/merged to another article, like Biographies of Guantanamo prisoners or sth like that, with an eye on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of course. Given that the article is rather well-sourced and written for such a difficult topic, I would favour preserving the content in one way or another, on this page or on another page.Jasy jatere (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2008 (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.

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Mohammad Albkri[edit]

This man does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The only thing approaching a claim of notability is that he sued President Bush (join the club). Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, while it was a stub, it has now grown into a larger stub with more context and details; his name seems to appear quite a bit in Yemeni and peninsular news sources - he's being held (presumably as a terrorist) by the United States in an illegal prison where he was made a ghost prisoner according to some sources, and subsequently sued the United States...I'd say he hits notability benchmarks. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular section of WP:BIO you'd like to point to to back that up? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is he notable? What has he done that's notable? Lot's of people who are involved in auto accident sue the United States, for instance, yet it does not make them "notable". The rest of the page, like so many similar to it, acts as a record of legal proceedings and provides links to legal briefs, which is not encyclopedic. At this point it would probably be better to list the identity of detainees held at GITMO to be placed on one page so we can avoid the legal intricacies of their cases. This is not a legal docketing source.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just so we're clear, you'd say the same thing about all Guantanamo detainees with the exception of maybe five or six "super notable" ones plastered across the newspapers? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, the masterminds? Pretty much on target. Their actions make them notable, their status as detainees does not.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not everyone gets to be notable. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which part of WP:BIO he meets? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which part of WP:BIO Andre Dallaire meets? WP:BIO is not policy, it is a sadly-flawed and incomplete attempt to list what specific editors think makes a "good" article. It is subjective, and simply says "In the field of chemistry, this is what we consider notable, in the field of Football, this is what we consider notable". Please don't make a false appeal to authority by claiming articles need to match some random and invisible benchmark set up by a few users anxious to overinflate their own importance by trying to categorise what makes a "good" biographical article. I could just as easily walk around AFDs demanding "Please explain how you think this article deserves to be kept based on User:Sherurcij/ListOfArticlesThatPissMeOff. There's almost zero validity to our current WP:BIO, which is just made to look important by a bunch of users such as yourself throwing it around heftily. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing André Dallaire out to me; I've nominated that for deletion. WP:WAX aside, my question stands. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would merge and redirect. I don't think this individual is notable enough for stand alone article. An article on those held would be better in my opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Continued incarceration and the controversy surrounding it is notability enough. I find the protestations of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E unconvincing and unwarranted: editors need to look at the clearly at why this subject is notable, and will see it is not for one event, but a series of related events. Which for example, is the case with Lee Harvey Oswald, who is notable not only for killing JFK, but for being killed himself, and for being the focus of much subsequent conspiranoia and investigation. Furthermore, WP:BIO is invalid in my eyes, because it contradicts at times what WP:N says, in particular regarding using sources and verifiability rather than subjective opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And lo and behold, Lee Harvey Oswald bears references to non-trivial coverage in eighteen books, meeting WP:GNG. Ameen Mohammad Albkri, on the other hand, does not. WP:BIO and WP:N enjoy wide acceptance among the Wikipedia community; if you feel that it is invalid or contradictory, please gather a consensus to change it at WT:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not greys but black and white. You can have one source and one verfication or you can have 1,000, notability is proven either way. The sources this article sites barely meet WP:BIO but they meet, and definitely meet WP:NOTE - they are verified with multiple media sources, and are supported int heir assertions with reliable primary and secondary source material. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Article has grown, been sourced properly and has notability for WP:BIO. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, and notable because of the issue. NoVomit (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant figure in historical events, well sourced. Many of the individual people here have individual notability because of the separate legal proceedings. This is a matter of permanent international interest, not well covered by the press initially, but by now there is sufficient material. Will be further notable; there in addition is very likely to already be material in languages not easily accessible to us. I think this is clear, but for those who think this is borderline, we resolve situations in favor of notability in the presence of strong cultural bias, This is different from situations like the Virginia Tech or the WTC victims, who most of them after the event had only memorials written. The subsequent legal actions here make him notable, not just being captured. DGG (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I did some more research on Ameen Mohammad Albkri since this nomination. He was someone I couldn't originally tie to anyone on the official lists of captives. But, recently, new sources have come to light, and I am now pretty sure that the Ameen Mohammad Albkri is merely a different transliteration of Abdul Hakim Bukhary. Normally, I would just merge the two articles. I won't do that now -- while the article is under discussion for deletion. Abdul Hakim Bukhary is a Saudi who fought against Afghanistan's Soviet invaders in the 1980s, back when that made him an ally of the CIA. He returned to Afghanistan sometime in 2001, and promptly said something that made the Taliban believe he was a US spy. He made positive comments about Ahmed Shah Massoud, who had been a widely admired mujahideen leader during the resistance against the Soviets when he was in Afghanistan in the 1980s, without realizing that in 2001 Massoud was the Taliban's number one enemy. Bukhary said he made this comment before the US invasion, and was promptly imprisoned, and beaten by the Taliban. There were about half a dozen captives of the Taliban who were in same position as Bukhary, held under brutal conditions by Taliban, set loose from the Taliban prison by the Northern Alliance, held briefly under very loose and lenient conditions in a refugee camp, where, they report,they were interviewed by the BBC and other western news agencies, where they expressed their gratitude that the invasion had set them free -- only to find themselves not set free, after all, but to be bundled up, and transferred to Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I stand open to correction, but I think that closing this discussion as merge to Abdul Hakim Bukhary makes the most sense. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are now saying the subject does not exist, but is in actuality another person entirely on a bad name, then deletion is appropriate, the issue of notability is thereby moot, and the above arguments are obviated. One can only assume that the other individual listed has all of the information required, and actually exists. No merge is necessary.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources about this individual in the other article, under his other name, and we have a source about him here, in this article. Merge and redirection is done all the time. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they definitely don't seem to be the same person, one is a Saudi veteran who's lived in Afghanistan for ~20 years, the other is a Yemeni shrimp merchant who doesn't appear to have ever gone to Afghanistan until American captors flew him there. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:49, 1 January 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was withdraw by request of nominator. Versus22_talk 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley[edit]

This is a userfied version of a page deleted by AFD, and an editor (other than Geo Swan) working on the page[32] has immediately abused the WP:U process by attempting to sidestep the AFD process by creating redirects to the page: [33] [34] It is no longer a good faith use of userspace. THF (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC), clarified 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(or let someone else userfy it) Userfying articles deleted for AfD is done so that the article can be brought up to standards, not to avoid the deletion of the article. The fact that this user is linking to their userspace version from the mainspace shows their intention to be the latter not the former. This is without prejudice against someone else working on the article. Chillum 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how moving the page elsewhere in userspace helps. It is already being worked on by multiple editors and it was a user other than Geo Swan who is linking from mainspace. THF (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea I had in mind was if a user had the good faith intention to finish bringing the article up to standards. If there was such a person I would not deny them that because of this editor's actions. Failing that I say delete.Chillum 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Allow the productive users to attempt to bring this up to standards. It is better to warn the person making the inappropriate links and block them if they don't stop than it is to delete the article. I see attempts to improve the article being made. Chillum 15:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep As above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Good faith efforts have been made to improve this article. The Yvonne Bradley article can be blocked from editing, while is work is being performed on an improved version. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chillum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note from deleting/userfying admin - PJHaseldine should be warned against making cross-namespace redirects, and this MfD closed. A good faith effort is being made to improve material - thew effort continues as evidenced in history, and this is a perfectly acceptable use of userspace per WP:USER Fritzpoll (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like good-faith attempts to improve the article. Warning for cross-namespace redirects should be appropriate. In fact, it probably would be better to have everything link to the redlinked article space name. That would make the move back enough to get it into the article universe, instead of fixing redirects. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page, but speedy delete the cross-namespace redirects (or retarget them to an appropriate mainspace page). Stifle (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SNOW, I withdraw the nomination to reduce the amount of editor time spent on this; there appears WP:CONSENSUS that deleting the page is not the appropriate response. THF (talk) 14:11, 9 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 no consensus. After the requisite time for AfD it is obvious that there is no consensus. Valley2city^‽ 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca S. Snyder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The entire article is WP:PRIMARY sources and passing quotes of an attorney who is not the lead counsel on any notable cases. Flunks WP:BIO. A similar article can be written WP:PUFFing tens of thousands of other associates in law firms by using similar primary sources. At best it is a BLP1E that should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself. THF (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since the last AfD where consensus found it exceeded the requirements of notability? Chillum 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD decision was simply contrary to Wikipedia notability policies. None of these sources are about Snyder. They're either by her, or about her client. If Snyder is notable, so is every associate at her law firm. THF (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline not a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Chillum 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the policy dictates that consensus can change.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes brew, that is why I asked if anything has changed. Chillum 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change even if nothing else changes. Especially, when the previous afd, for some reason, turned into a runaway inclusionist train with nobody showing how she meets WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in the original AFD. This COATRACK of an article violates guidelines and policies, and is redundant of existing articles. THF (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an article 10k bytes in size, I see only two quotes by the subject; one could argue that only one is necessary, but I definitely don't understand how one can argue this is just a collection of tertiary quotes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets see what happens this time. I will review the sources later and give an opinion. Chillum 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Nominator asserts Snyder's only claim to notability is her association with a single Guantanamao captive, and wrote: "...should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself." I always thought those making a nomination for deletion should actually read the article, so their nomination doesn't contain factual errors. Snyder has helped at least two Guantanamo captives, Khadr and David Hicks -- "the Australian Taliban". [35], [36], [37]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article. Having said that -- the assertion that similar articles could be created for tens of thousands of other lawyers -- well, if thousands of other lawyers have received substantive world-wide coverage of their activities, over several years, for several aspects of their activities, then lets have articles on all of them, even if there are thousands. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snyder has had extensive coverage, outside the USA. It is important to remember that the wikipedia is not a solely American project. I am mystified as to what an assertion of BLP1E means, when the individual has multiple, extensive reports spanning several years. WRT WP:COATRACK -- it is an interesting essay, but I have found that it is frequently cited by individuals, who, when asked for clarification, can't explain how it applies to the current article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of years ago a wiseguy made the argument that the article on Tony Blair violated BLP1E, because, after all, no-one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported George W. Bush. They suggested the Tony Blair article should be redirected to the George W. Bush article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Saying that Snyder has received significant coverage doesn't change the fact that she hasn't, especially when the article's list of references are mostly court documents dressed up as coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero independent sources of biographical material about her. The resume at her current employer is not indpendent, and such exists for essentially all lawyers who work for a law firm. Khadr is adequately covered, nothing merits merging there, or anywhere else. While the normal solution to a WP:BLP1E problem is to merge, with nothing to merge deletion is the right outcome. GRBerry 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as the 12 people who snowballed "Keep" on the first attempt to delete this biography. The fact the nominator suggests Omar Khadr (307,000 individual Google hits) is also "barely notable" suggests he is either severely lacking in context of these issues - or purposely employing rhetoric to try and have articles deleted. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to point out which one of the 12 keeps rationals are most in tune with WP's policies ? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"absolutely passes WP:N"

"coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources."

"sources from major newspapers in two countries."

"A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer."

"adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable."

"demonstrates notability beyond question"

"Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article"

Take your choice of any of the above, they all seem to be based on WP policy. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

making unsupported matter-of-fact claims that contradict reality is not WP policy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her role is more significant than most of these nominated., enough for individual notability. DGG (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I very strongly disagree with that assessment. This is a former associate at a law firm; the Khadr article itself mentions ten attorneys by name without mentioning Snyder once. THF (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a good article. I don't see the failure of notability, the person is covered. Chillum 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: covered by what? Miscellaneous 10 U.S.C. §950(g) court filings where she's the number two attorney? (That's footnote 3 by the way: pure WP:PUFF.) Is it really that easy for lawyers to jump over the notability bar, simply by looking up docket sheets? THF (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coatrack. Part of a very large walled garden of articles which rely on each other for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many of the reasons already stated, including coatrack. The subject is known for one event, and her case history, which is irrelevant in any case, consists of four entire cases. In the legal profession, that's the number of cases any decent litigator gets assigned in a month (a slow one at that). The subject is simply not notable. I agree that the best course would be to delete this article, and move the sources to Omar Khadr, where her quotes can be utilized in that article in their proper context.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E as well as straight WP:BIO -- no significant secondary source articles with Ms. Snyder as the subject. Ray^Talk 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well referenced article on figure with substantial international coverage. For instance, press reports from the most prominent Canadian papers on her government testimony, her opinion on US and Canadian government policy, clearly passes substantial coverage. To argue that she is only famous for defending Guantanamo detainees is to ignore her coverage as an expert and actor in this field. T L Miles (talk) 02:47, 13 March 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.

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 deleted by Alexf, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea J. Prasow[edit]

Flunks WP:BIO. An associate with an American law firm, not independently notable, notwithstanding WP:PUFF in biography. THF (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator cites WP:PUFF as if it were a wikipedia policy. In fact it is an essay, started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent notability (and I tried searching for biographic sources) no content we should have that is not already in Salim Hamdan. With nothing to merge, the usual BLP1E solution of merging doesn't apply. With no notability, deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E. The subject is simply not notable.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation -- Let me own up to having tunnel vision, and creating this, and a few other articles, without anticipating them being challenged, or that they would not survive those challenges. Let me acknowledge this article will not survive this {{afd}}. I requested advice here about moving articles to user space, while they were deing discussed for deletion. Based on this advice I am going to move this article to my user space, where I will look for more coverage. If I can't find enough to justify an expansion and move back to article space I will cannibalize the references for use elsewhere. If I think I have found better references and expanded it to the point it won't be challenged, I will consult others, including the administrator who closed this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:10, 12 March 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.

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 speedily deleted (G7, author requested) by Nja247. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter C. Bradford[edit]

Non-notable attorney. Flunks WP:BIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his barely notable client. THF (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a demonstration of notability by a reliable source can be found. Chillum 22:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck was I thinking? -- I started this article. That was about fifteen months ago. Why did I start it? I don't actually remember. I think I must have just finished transcribing a memo Lieutenant Bradford wrote -- Wikisource:Legal sufficiency review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN 940 (2005-01-25). This is an interesting memo. It is the only memo I have come across that showed a CSR Tribunal had reached a split decision. I must have thought I would come across additional documents by Bradford, or about Bradford. I was clearly wrong. As the sole author of the intellectual content of this article I would like to save the time of others and bring this discussion to a quick close by putting a {{db-author}} on the article. FWIW, My mistake fifteen months ago was a good faith mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 07:34, 9 March 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.

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer)[edit]

Entire article is based on one single Honolulu Weekly story, with a passing mention from the Maui News. Flunks WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Article is full of WP:SYN, and puffed by a poster that has nothing to do with Burke. Salting of the article with the adjective "notable" doesn't convey notability. THF (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator cites WP:PUFF as if it were a wikipedia policy. In fact it is an essay, started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. I looked on Gnews, got nothing significant -- in fact, even with Guantanamo included as a search term, Mr. Burke is overshadowed by his 200 years-dead namesake. Ray^Talk 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. All lawyers have at least one major case in their careers, so this is nothing special. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 11 March 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.

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela L. Campbell[edit]

Flunks WP:BIO; entire article is really about her cases. Three sources: two are WP:PRIMARY, one mentions her in passing in discussing one of her barely-notable cases. NB notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Does not yet meet WP:ACADEMIC. THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Carpenter[edit]

Associate at law firm whose notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of being a co-counsel on a couple of barely notable Guantanamo cases. Flunks WP:BIO: every source is either WP:PRIMARY or about one of his underlying cases. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is fully enough information for this particular individual both with respect to his leadership in the GB cases and in other notable cases to justify an article. I am not sure that al of these afd nominations were equally well considered. DGG (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations. This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has. The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case. Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume there would be tens of thousands of notable US lawyers, that's about 1 or 2% of the profession.-- and after all, that might even include the nominator. TOO MANY is not an argument for deletion. NOT ME isn't an argument either. By the way, I agree with most of the other nominations (at least as far as merging, not keeping as separate articles) to the extent I've tried to find sources so far. Most of them do seem to be well considered. DGG (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability - if there is a notable person by this name it appears to be the Australian author born 1916 - and nothing here meriting a merge elsewhere. GRBerry 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just ftr, at no time during my representation of GTMO prisoners -- which continues to this day, after 19 years -- was I an associate at a law firm.

Not disagreeing with the decision, about which I was more relieved.

CC 184.166.66.148 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the law firm website shows, subject is a partner and the head of the firm effort in the GB litigation. Three items cited -- Montana bar vote to close GB, Taibi attempt to recuse CJ Roberts, investigation of CIA tape destruction -- distinguishess cases from ordinary GB litigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.84.193 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per THF's exhaustive explanation of the sourcing/notability issues above. Ray^Talk 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I believe his dogged attempt to pursue the CIA over its violation of the court orders to preserve evidence that would show his clients were innocent merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing administrators -- I know that this {{afd}} has run for close to the normal period. But I would like to request this article be relisted, so I include additional material. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, it is provided by the existence of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject, separate from the single event which initially gave him prominence. There is no evidence of that here, althoguh there certainly is for Mr. Darrow. If an independent scholar should write a book on Mr. Carpenter, we would definitely revisit this debate. As for your failure to abide by WP:AGF, that is quite tiresome. Is it inconceivable that there might be serious editors who have noticed that a significant portion of an entire category of articles is likely to fail our notability standards, and have embarked on a legitimate cleanup effort of this swamp? Although THF and I have disagreed in the past, I have the highest respect for his devotion to Wikipedia, and the energy he pours into maintaining its quality. Ray^Talk 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. I also find the personal attack on the nominator, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message, to be in rather bad taste. The nominator, as is this author, is an attorney, and as such, special preference should be afforded to an attorney's professional opinion as to what makes another attorney "notable" in that profession. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients, including requests for spoliation as against the CIA as noted by another contributor, are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. As it stands, the subject's lack of notability dictates that the article be deleted. The author may want to use the links in the article with the articles related to the clients that the attorney in question represents. Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darrow would have been notable had he never written anything but a legal brief or an argument. An attorney's efforts for a client may for technical legal purposes be treated as those of the client, but in actuality they are his own, or really good trial attorneys would never command the fees they do. I have previously noticed the likelihood of those in a profession over-deleting material of others in their profession; this is not a personal reflection, I've even noticed i automatically tend to be skeptical of articles on librarians. A claim to delete because "we know better than you that he is not notable" should be disregarded. A strong attack against all articles of a given type, or people in a given specialty, should be treated with very strong skepticism. DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. An attorney's interest is aligned with that of his client. One does not become a "better" lawyer for one's client because one drives a Lotus or charges "really high fees", though this may be your opinion as a layman. I have seen public defenders that could wipe the floor with attorneys considered superstars. Your position that we are overly critical of our fellow attorneys is noted, but also discounted at the same time. The standards of the profession, and the role an attorney takes in representing a client, are matters known uniquely by other lawyers. Thus, to an attorney, representing some person who's a "really bad guy" is as relevant as representing Joan of Ark. Attorneys gain notability not simply by doing their job, which includes representing sinners and saints, but by gaining notability OUTSIDE OF REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENTS. The client is the one with notability, not the attorney who advocates for or against their interests. Yet that is what we have in this case. Carpenter's notability arises because he represents a couple of GTMO detainees, which is about as notable as representing a mass murderer in Texas, or a single mother in Baltimore, or a drug user in Phoenix. It simply does not amount to the level of being notable. Notability is simply not ascribed to an attorney because his client is notable. It is not inherited. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 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.

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 deleted by Alexf, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Chandler[edit]

Flunks WP:BIO by a long shot. One news story about his leaving his law firm; three briefs (lawyers file hundreds of briefs; they don't create notability); and a WP:PRIMARY law-firm piece about his pro bono work. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. THF (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Flunks WP:BIO outright. Ray^Talk 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation -- Let me own up to having tunnel vision, and creating this, and a few other articles, without anticipating them being challenged, or that they would not survive those challenges. Let me acknowledge this article will not survive this {{afd}}. I requested advice here about moving articles to user space, while they were deing discussed for deletion. Based on this advice I am going to move this article to my user space, where I will look for more coverage. If I can't find enough to justify an expansion and move back to article space I will cannibalize the references for use elsewhere. If I think I have found better references and expanded it to the point it won't be challenged, I will consult others, including the administrator who closed this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 12 March 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.

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 deleted by Alexf, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rogers Chepiga[edit]

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Lots of lawyers file amicus briefs (indeed, I have, and no one on Wikipedia thought it was notable). One source is WP:PRIMARY, the other mentions her in one sentence in the context of the larger litigation. THF (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage as required by WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if specific detainees are added, Keep, otherwise, Delete Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if names are added of clients, the subject still fails notability. Notability is not inherited, and it is not ascribed by rubbing shoulders with notable people either. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation -- Let me own up to having tunnel vision, and creating this, and a few other articles, without anticipating them being challenged, or that they would not survive those challenges. Let me acknowledge this article will not survive this {{afd}}. I requested advice here about moving articles to user space, while they were deing discussed for deletion. Based on this advice I am going to move this article to my user space, where I will look for more coverage. If I can't find enough to justify an expansion and move back to article space I will cannibalize the references for use elsewhere. If I think I have found better references and expanded it to the point it won't be challenged, I will consult others, including the administrator who closed this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:12, 12 March 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.

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Colangelo-Bryan[edit]

Law firm associate: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All secondary sources are about his case, not about him. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject is not notable. Notability is not inherited. The person the attorney represents may be notable, but it is a stretch to say this makes the attorney notable as well. As it stands, article appears to be WP:COATRACK.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of anything other than incidental coverage of the subject. Ray^Talk 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's hard not to assume bad-faith when a core group of friends all decide they want to delete a set of all related biographies -- first all Guantanamo detainees, and failing that, they've turned to all lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees. In this case, as in Snyder, it's a poor choice since defending multiple terrorists before military tribunal proceedings and their build-up is clearly enough to establish notability -- same as we have Third Reich and Nuremburg legal clerks listed. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone created an article about a law-firm associate who had a minor role in one of the minor Nuremberg trials, and that attorney didn't go on to establish notability otherwise, you darn well bet I'd AFD them. Try to create an article for Maurice C. Myers or Raymond J. McMahon, Jr., and see what happens. There isn't even an article for Friedrich Bergold--and Bergold was actually a lead defense counsel in the Milch Trial. (Actually, do take a look at Milch Trial--it's filled with red-links and unlinked attorneys.) Please WP:AGF, which is easier to do when the policy argument for keeping or deleting goes beyond WP:BECAUSEISAYSO. THF (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One must assume good faith, Sherucij. It would be better to avoid personal attacks in these discussions, and stick to making points regarding why the subject passes notability. My response is your point actually works against you. The events themselves are notable, not the attorneys involved because they participated in the event. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're comparing GB to the Nuremberg Trials, which one of the Category:Nuremberg Trial attorneys (I'm not even going to bother clicking "Show preview" because I'm sure I'm not creating a redlink) do you think is unnotable?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of a single biographical source about this person (and I looked). WP:BLP1E applies. His color quote about the reasons for suicide probably shouldn't be included in Guantanamo suicide attempts, represents the normal advocacy of a lawyer for their client rather than an independent viewpoint, so I don't see anything to merge. With nothing to merge, deletion is the right outcome. GRBerry 21:34, 10 March 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.

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 redirect to Legal Advisor (OARDEC). MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Crisfield[edit]

WP:BIO currently without any WP:RS; has had a notability tag for over a year without improvement. It would be possible to WP:PUFF up the article by stringing together the handful of places where news organizations have quoted a single memo he wrote,[38] but there's not the significant independent coverage that confers notability. THF (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think poking the creator to improve the article is a better route. Crisfield seems to (barely) squeak across as notable, [being interviewed by the New York Times for example, on the Guantanamo proceedings and such. He's not "just a legal figure", he's a "legal figure who goes to the press" -- and I'm always in favour of having WP biographies about anybody who's quoted in the press (within reason) -- because otherwise you see embarrassing gaffes like when FOX News labeled Paul Fromm as a "free speech advocate", when he's actually a very vocal White Supremacist. Simple googling of Fromm's name would have prevented that, and I like to think WP does its bit to make sure that when a reporter googles a source's name, we have an impartial record of who that person is. (Again, within reason...the Tallahassee dog catcher is probably not notable). The judges, lawyers and clerks who participated in the Nuremberg trials all have articles, I can't see that Guantanamo is any different. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet wp:bio notability standards. The only "poking of the creator" that should be going is to tell him to quit creating articles that clearly do not meet WP:BIO in order to further his cause of making Wikipedia everything Guantanamo Bay. With respect, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh -- I know I have requested you, dozens of times, to comply with policy, and confine your comments to the issues, not your perceptions of personalities. I am going to repeat that request here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but I think your intentions are important here. You are a SPA account that only creates articles about everything and anything that is somehow related to GB. Most of the content you create are WP:BLP1E's, if that much. The amount of articles that you create that goes through afd's outnumbers by far the creations of other editors. You were advised by a multiple consensus of editors to stop creating these BLP1e's, yet you stubbornly continue to create these non-notable bios. Please stop turning WP into a battlefield for you war against GB and stop creating articles that do not meet WP:BIO. With respect,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the very unfortunate features of the wikipedia is that although it has the goal of encouraging a civil discussion, collegial cooperation, and a culture of civility, a subculture has grown up within the wikipedia's deletion fora, where violations of the wikipedia's civility policies are so routine they sail past most participants without comment. I am not a "single purpose account". Why just this year I have started William H. Latham, William H. Latham (icebreaker), Caterpillar 789 dump truck, Caterpillar 777 dump truck, Vidar Viking, Saint John’s University, Haji Yacoub (Uttar Pradesh), Saint John’s University School of Law, CCGS Gordon Reid. None of these articles have anything to do with "GB", or the "war on terror". I urge you, in the interests of the project to quit mounting personal attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- I think it is very important to cover Crisfield because he is the author of several important rulings. Crisfield's memos document the controversial practice of OARDEC scheduling "do-overs", when the first Tribunals determined captives weren't combatants after all. Crisfield's memos clarify the difference between the CSR Tribunals and the competent tribunals required by the Geneva Conventions. Crisfield's memos clarify that the evidence against the captives is largely "hearsay evidence". I know that it might seem appropriate to some readers to suggest, "so mention these memos in article X". But that won't work because Crisfield's ruling should be referred to in multiple other articles. Shoehorning the coverage of Crisfield's rulings into a single other article is, I believe, a mistake. Some of these rulings may not belong in the suggested target article. And shoehorning them into a single other article short-changes the readers of the other articles where Crisfield's rulings belong. Since he merits mention in other places there should be a central place that discusses just him. And the logical place for that coverage is an article about him. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This editor's revised opinion is below. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes, I am aware this article is missing info like where he was born, went to school, and career before and after Guantanamo. If I had found any of that information I would have included it. But I don't think the absence of this kind of information means an article should be deleted. Sometimes we know practically nothing about someone, who is still definitely worth covering. There is an 8th Century scholar known as the "false Geber". He wrote his books under the name of a famous Arab scholar. Back in the days were every book had to be copied in longhand it was a well-known technique to get one's work republished by using the name of someone famous. Most of the impostors didn't make worthwhile contributions. But false Geber did. He was the first to publish techniques for the purification and use of sulphuric acid. Isaac Asimove listed both Geber and false Geber in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science that listed the top 1000 scientists of all time. A lack of info about individuals' birth, schooling, early career is not a bar to covering them here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has now been WP:PUFFed with the use of the adjective "notable" and a lengthy chart of the editor's picking and choosing from primary sources and then synthesizing it with third-party sources that don't mention Crisfield. Still doesn't establish notability for the person, as opposed to a subsection of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals article discussing memos by Crisfield and others. THF (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geo Swan's points are compelling. 76.70.118.218 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — 76.70.118.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No sources of biographic data on this individual are used in the article, nor was I able to find any. WP:BLP1E applies, the potential merge target is Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the information in this article would not enhance that article, so merging should not occur and deletion should occur. GRBerry 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm reluctant to invoke WP:BLP1E for an extended event, but it seems unlikely that this person will ever be known, or of note in the sense that we invoke notability -- that is to say, enough people care about his life to get nontrivial coverage in secondary sources. Ray^Talk 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Legal Advisor (OARDEC). Since I expressed my keep opinion I have slept on this. And I have changed my choice. Combatant Status Review Tribunal is already too long, and will grow even longer as it grows more complete. "Legal advisor" was Crisfield's official title, and I will be happy with this material being merged with Legal Advisor (OARDEC). And if significant biographical material about Crisfield's birth, or career before or after his Guantanamo hitch emerge, further changes can be discussed then. Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a more plausible place. But what would go? Source 6 is already (mis?)used there. Sources 7, 5, and maybe 3 seem more reasonable for use there, but not the data or text here. Better if you just used those sources there and we sent this page and its history to the dustbin. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I frankly don't understand this comment. What downside do you see to merge and redirection? Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm only willing to do that for a BLP when there is some content to merge. I don't see any content here that I am willing to support merging. A good article on the legal advisors would not be a quote mine from primary sources, it would be a summary of the descriptions given by multiple independent sources about the role and performance of legal advisors. The content here does not meet that test. Indeed, reviewing the article I just found one of the four quotes had to be removed as failing the test for verification, it clearly misattributed to Crisfield the advise of someone else. (I'd previously fixed this in Legal Advisor (OARDEC).) Merge and redirect means leaves the redirect exposed to vandalism without the new page patrol line of defense - I'll live with that for a Pokemon, but not for a living person's name in the absence of actual content to be merged with authorship attribution. GRBerry 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not notable, and notability is not inherited. Simply being an attorney at GTMO is not enough to impart notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua L. Dratel[edit]

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- and he never even actually got around to representing his ostensible Gitmo client, who pled guilty. Two primary sources, and one SMH source that doesn't even mention him by name. Article is redundant with David Hicks. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Dratel is the author of two signicant books. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. He is the co-editor of two books of marginal notability where he compiles primary documents. THF (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The nomination asserts that Dratel "never got around to defending his client" -- sorry, but that is a highly inflammatory way of describing Dratel's role. The Commissions are new, untried, unprecedented, and according to the many accounts of insiders chaotically run. The Prosecution has been repeatedly split by discord, with over half a dozen lawyers resigning over ethical concerns. It is very misleading to claim he "never got around" to defending Hicks. Dratel had flown to Guantanamo, time consuming, and expensive, for Hicks big day. Before Hicks trial began the Presiding Officer introduced sudden procedural impediments to the lawyers Hicks had been working with for years participating in his trial. Dratel described how he came to be barred. "Never got around" is a very misleading description. The nomination notes that Hicks plead guilty. Yes, he pled guilty -- almost immediately after learning his Defense team had been shattered by the Presiding Officers sudden procedural impediments. I suggest the circumstances under which Dratel was barred from participation are as remarkable as his actual participation would have been if the Commission had proceeded. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#CHAT, and you just gave a very good reason to expand the Hicks article. But it doesn't make Dratel notable just because he took a plane flight and refused to sign paperwork. THF (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As is the case with most of these articles, he's not notable. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Simply representing a detainee does not provide an attorney is "notable" enough to merit an entire article. Scrap this article, and use some of the language to expand the Hicks article. I think this is the right move.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. In closing, I have seen no argument that makes the case the subject is in fact "notable" as required under Wikipedia's guidelines, notwithstanding the patently uncivil personal attack I see in the above-post. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 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.

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dorsey[edit]

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary source, two sources that mention him in passing in the context of his client, each with the same quote. Everything else is sketchy resume details and an attempt to WP:PUFF his one quote ("Dorsey commented on a letter") into notability. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per prior points as subject is simply not notable.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 13 March 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.

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Davis[edit]

WP:BLP1E; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary reference; four references in passing in the context of his client. Mentioned once in the article of his client Mani Al-Utaybi, whom he apparently never met, or filed a valid court document on behalf of. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails notability requirements.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E applies; all relevant data is already in Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi#Legal representation so there is nothing to merge, and deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never nominated a Guantanamo detainee for deletion. I've reviewed 30 or so Guantanamo attorney articles, and nominated about half of them for deletion. No one claims Darrow is notable because he represented Snopes; he's notable because he has multiple books written about him, and was the leading lawyer of his day. When Mr. Davis has a tenth of that level of notability, no one will contest him getting a Wikipedia article. You've cut and paste the same accusation of bad faith in multiple AFDs, which hardly suggests that you are performing your own good-faith evaluation. THF (talk) 17:53, 13 March 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shayana D. Kadidal[edit]

Subject fails notability. The article also fails wp:bio and appears to be a coatrack for Guantanamo Bay. The claim of notability is that the subject represents clients at Guantanamo Bay, but this alone does not provide notability, as notability is not inherited. The writings listed are limited to items concerning the subject's clients. A proper course would be to list this individual as counsel in the client's page for each detainee. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No third-party sources in article except for a blog, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by his associate-level work on a handful of cases, a number of which aren't remotely notable. The WP:PUFF in the article is unbelievable: a lawyer filed a status report? and a motion for joinder? Sign up 2000 litigators at Baker & McKenzie for Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've agreed with the author of most of this category of articles, GeoSwan, to forego further AFD nominations in return for him reviewing these articles with a jaundiced eye and userfying the majority of them that do not meet BIO. Since that would resolve the problem with a minimum of other editors' time, I ask Yachtsman1 to also forego such additional nominations for 30 days or so, instead tagging with {{notability}} and {{primarysources}} tags. THF (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly satisfies Notability guideline for "significant" coverage, as interviewed or featured in more than a dozen international publications (NYT, Guardian, NPR, Al-Jazeera), writes columns for major publications, "senior managing attorney of the Guantánamo project" at the CCR. Guideline defines "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." He has received BOTH "Significant" AND "Exclusive" coverage from national and international press. According to his bio, reffed in the article :" In addition to supervising the Guantánamo litigation, he also works on the Center’s case against the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program, CCR v. Bush, and its challenge to the “material support” statute, HLP v. Gonzales. Shane has testified before Congress on the material witness statute and is a contributor to the Center’s book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, 2006." That previous remarks here state "associate-level work on a handful of cases, a number of which aren't remotely notable" suggests that they have not actually looked at the sources. T L Miles (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been named as counsel in a number of articles, and added a few comments. His notability comes from his clients, not from himself. Again, simply being an attorney for someone famous does not make one famous. See WP:NOTINHERITED. THF is correct on this score. On another matter, I will also hold off nominating these articles for 30 days as suggested.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per the article, you might characterize his writing columns for publications such as The Guardian, or being interviewed in a number of papers on a number of different cases as "named as counsel in a number of articles, and added a few comments" but I believe that to be an inaccurate summation of the sources. I believe an unprejudiced look at the references now in the article demonstrates this. These show quite clearly that he is notable in and of himself, for his body work, not inherited from others. T L Miles (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Being interviewed regarding cases an attorney is involved in is par for the course. If this imparted notability, half of the litigators in the United States would have their own wikipedia article. The subjects of the article are the clients, not the attorney. He merely acts as the voice of the client, his advocate, nothing else. When looked at objectively, the links display that the "notability" of the subject is merely inherited from the clients he represents. He's not the story, his clients are.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having a notable client doesn't make someone notable. Something additional is required to make an individual notable. For Kadidal why doesn't being picked by US security officials to be the target of warrantless wiretap make him notable? Why doesn't taking a lead role in suing the US government for those wiretaps make him notable? Various publications have chosen to seek out his comments on cases he is not a party to [39], [40] -- why doesn't this make him notable? Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I started this AFD. The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since you wrote "subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted." I feel compelled to ask you to actually read the references now attached to the article: your statement is most certainly is not "admitted" nor supported by those references. His notability comes from his work as a lawyer, which began (and gained write ups in the New York Times) before Guantanamo was opened, involves work as a spokesperson for an organisation which coordinates a broad defense of these and other clients, and organizes opposition to both Guantanamo and the broader political behavior of the United States government. This includes, but is not limited to, being a spokesperson for a suit against the NSA, in which he himself is party, other suits not involving Guantanamo defendants (such as HLP v. Gonzales) interviews, speeches (I've seen him speak several times here in NYC), and authorship of articles, columns on two continents. You write (correctly) "an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently." But if you actually examine this specific article (as opposed to writing things about all these AFDs you're pushing collectively), you will see that this particular individual is notable far beyond merely defending a single notable client, and for things beyond all the Guantanamo clients.T L Miles (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Yes, I read the references. It appears that the subject represeents people in cases. If you ran my name, you would come up with a number of the same types of articles and volume, yet I do not pretend to be notable. The statement was made by Sherurcij that you now "contest". Bringing suit against the NSA does not really make one noteworthy, either, nor does acting as a "spokesperson" for the parties. Acting as a lawyer does not confer notability, nor does giving speeches. As it stands, the subject is not notable. His clients are notable. The article should be deleted as failing notability requirements. The case materials in the form of filings should be included under each of his notable clients, not under tha name of the attorney who wrote them on behalf of that client. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Your logic would mean that no lawyer could be notable for their work as a lawyer. As an historian, would I never be notable, since I too only write about others? If I were interviewed (with big photos mind you, as Shane was recently) in ABC Madrid and SudDeutche Zietung would I remain non-notable? If I wrote editorials on my opinions on a wide variety of topics in a number of publications over several years, on topics which I did not directly work, would that be "Inherited"? Inherited from what? Being famous? T L Miles (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - It means an attorney must gain notability by something other than representing notable clients. In the cases you are presenting to me, you are providing examples of what lawyers do. They write and advocate for the client's interests. In effect, when writing or talking about his client, the attorney is merely a mouthpiece for that interest. He "is" the client. Do you understand? There is no difference in speaking to the press about your client as speaking to the Court about your client. As a historian, you do not share the interests of your clients, and your works are notable in and of themselves. In the same manner, if an attorney writes a history of legal precedent in 18th century village live in a small hamlet located in Berkshire from review of manorial court records, he would gain the same notability as a historian who writes about various historical subjects. I hope that clears this up.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except he's not "speaking to the press about his client": He's speaking to the press about Guantanamo in general, the Bush Administration's legal policies, the NSA's wiretapping policies, Immigration policy etc. He's also writing about these and topics as diverse as obscenity law, patent law, drug policy, plant resources of developing nations, etc... He's quoted in academic publications, UN documents, in Law School syllabi as an expert on these fields: and was before working at the CCR or the detaining of the people at Guantanamo. Very little of his work is actually filing motions for individual clients. Thus by your own construction above, he is notable for his works in and of themselves. Look, some of this batch of lawyers that you're pushing to have deleted may not be notable: I really don't now cause I haven't looked at the references. I would like to see some indication that this is not a mass AfD and that your arguments do not rest on "they're all lawyers for notable clients" and on the specifics of this individual. T L Miles (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - In speaking about GTMO, he is speaking for the interests of his clients, and in speaking for the interests of his client, he is critical of GTMO. Why? because his duty as an attorney is to get his client's out of GTMO, therefore his clients are vitcims of, as you put it, "Bush Administration policies". Bringing a lawsuit hardly makes one notable. Is a person notable for bringing a tort claim, for instance? He has written an opinion for the Huffington Post (a blog) about his clients, for instance, hardly a shining example of journalistic integrity and vetting. He has allegedly "contributed materials (not authored as asserted) for the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, 2006. Yet this comes not from the work itself, but from a biography linked from the Huffington Post. I also note that you have placed subjective importance to this individual's work. I realize that you and many others may support inclusion of the subject because he is an attorney representing GTMO clients who may be notable, but I must state again that notability is not inherited. Notability requires siginificant coverage, and I have yet to see any argument on this line either. In conclusion, the subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's definitions. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being quoted in a few publication doesn't satisfy the "substantial coverage" required by WP:BIO. Googlenews picks up nothing besides for a six court documents. Small town lawyers can do better then that. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and leaving out the middle initials (which he rarely uses), produces over ten pages of google news results. Please look at the article. If what you wrote above were true, where did I find all the references?T L Miles (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY and consistency with general unwritten Wikipedia consensus about the notability of pundits, but the article has a lot of wikipuffery that needs to be cleared out. Article should be moved to Shayana Kadidal after closure of AfD if kept. THF (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in agreement with THF. The article feels quite spammy and can definitely benefit from a sandblasting. But coverage in RS meets WP:PEOPLE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:50, 16 March 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.

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 Procedural close; please relist separately. NW (Talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nandor Vadas[edit]

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

non-notable person. He's a United States magistrate judge, an assistant/temporary district judge - not an automatically notable person, imo. As a matter of fact we're putting a proposal together for the notability of law/lawyers at the moment. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a lower level judicial officer, MJ Vadas is notable. He started a early settlement program for inmate settlement programs that has been adopted by all of the prisons in this District and some in the next district over. The amount of cases that this will clear from court calendars will save everyone a fortune.Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. And do we have reliable, independent sources covering Mr Vadas in sufficient detail? Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I found at least 7 other entries for magistrate judges, most of which are similar to this one (e.g. David Nuffer) Also there is a Category:United States magistrate judges. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a press release by the US District Court (included in article), the Times-Standard, and he was mentioned in another publication, the Northcoast Journal. I need to search the archives though. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The District Coourt release can't really be considered to be independent, considering the subject matter, the Times-Standard article is acceptable but local. Ironholds (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vadas prosecuted a case in the 9th Circuit, United States v. Gomez-Rodriguez Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So he was an attorney in a case? I have to say you're grasping at straws here. I know several barristers who have acted in the House of Lords that isn't a claim to notability. Ironholds (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your concerns, I still believe that Vadas is notable for several reasons. I read the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay with great interest, but it really doesn't apply to this case. In your original filing here, you stated that the subject is only a temporary judge. By showing that other magistrate judges with similar experience have articles and that there is even a category for magistrate judges' articles, I was not implying that he is automatically notable, but pointing out an error in your reasoning. Also, I disagree with your assertion that he is just a temporary judge. Unlike British magistrates, US Magistrates are considered to be judicial officers with a broad jurisdiction. They don't just deal with traffic tickets and minor cases, but jury and bench trials on referral. Due to the scope of matters heard and government classification, magistrate judges are judges and should be treated as such. As regards sourcing, I have linked to the State Bar, the Court press release and two newspaper articles. The Court website also hosts opinions that Vadas has authored over the last several years. Additionally, Vadas started a successful ADR program and is a member of the Magistrate Judge Advisory Group. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said assistant/temporary - assistant is the one that (currently) applies. As otherstuffexists shows, showing that er.. other stuff exists doesn't help. The fact that judicial decisions have been published is also irrelevant - they've been published by an associated judicial body, which is exactly what I'd expect. References: the press release is not independent, and is irrelevant. this does not give "significant" coverage - it mentions him in little more than a significant sentence. this is acceptable, although a local paper, and again, the State Bar site is completely irrelevant. If that was to be taken to be a reliable, independent reference covering him in significant details then every lawyer ever allowed to qualify in California would have an article. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does not qualify as a lawyer, but as a federal judicial officer and representative to the Judicial Conference. He is not an assistant judicial officer, but a judicial officer under Article I of the US Constitution. If this is not sufficient, then every other magistrate judge's article with similar instances needs to be deleted, and I will promptly act according to consensus here. Regardless of the independence of the press release, it is relevant as it lists his career and is prima facie proof of appointment. The Northcoast Journal articles establish the reasons why he left the district attorney's office. I do not understand your dislike of government websites, but the Bar website serves as proof of admission to the bar, disciplinary history, and academic background. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The press release isn't independent, no - so it doesn't pass WP:BIO. I do not have a dislike of government websites, but I don't feel the bar website is a valid reference as required under WP:BIO, because the bar website lists every attorney qualified to practice - it isn't evidence of notability. It would be like citing a note from Companies House which says that a company exists and is incorporated as evidence that the company is notable. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree about the bar website, and I am not using it for notability, but as proof that he is a lawyer, the year he was admitted to the bar, and his educational background. While the press release may violate the letter of WP:BIO, I don't think it is contrary to its spirit, because it is a reliable source. I understand your concerns completely and am willing to agree to disagree on the notability of magistrate judges. Now as a fellow student of the law (Admission forthcoming in 10 or so years), I would like to ask that the same standard applied here be applied to other magistrate articles. Would it be possible to nominate all of them for deletion and joinder them to this case? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, feel free. I see the misunderstanding here - I was judging the bar site and the like on "do they count as the multiple independent, reliable etc etc sources required under WP:BIO" rather than "do they count as a WP:RS for the purpose of verifying facts within the article". Ironholds (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am attaching the above mentioned magistrates to this case because the issue of notability is applicable to all of them. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. They don't meet the WP:GNG. Not ready to consider all judges de facto notable without support of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. District Court judges maybe, but not Magistrates.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider separately. I don't consider a Magistrate Judge to be inherently notable for occupying that position. It's appointed by the courts, limited in term (8 years, I think), and not subject to Senate confirmation. However, it's one thing to say that being a Magistrate Judge, per se, does not convey notability; and an entirely different thing to say that Magistrate Judges are per se not notable. Each of these individuals should be separately considered. For each, the fact that he is a Magistrate Judge is one factor to be considered in determining whether he is notable. Unless there is a consensus that holding a Magistrate Judge position inherently conveys notability (in which case all these articles should be kept), each needs to be separately considered. Positions like "Delete All" do not properly assess them on a case-by-case basis. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who's assessed them all individually, delete all works fine. We're actually in the process of drafting a notability guideline on judges for Wikiproject:Law, although I doubt it'll be done before this AfD is. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with TJRC -- I only know of Alan Kay (judge). When I started that article I had assumed he was a US District Court Judge, like all the other judges making rulings on the Guantanamo habeas corpus petitions. I have added some details on Kay's rulings. He made some key rulings. Geo Swan (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'It is Judge Robertson’s order on the terms of Hamdan’s confinement that is at issue, and in the ordinary situation, he would be the one to act on it. In an order issued early last month, the District Court said all disputes on “logistical issues, such as communications with or visits to clients and counsel,” for any of the detainees at Guantanamo who have court cases pending, are to be examined first by a magistrate judge, Alan Kay.'

Keep for Alan Kay -- Alan Kay made several key rulings in forcing the Department of Defense to allow Guantanamo captives access to their attorneys. He is notable. I haven't yet looked at the other guys. I think adding them to this {{afd}} was a mistake, because the individuals don't have enough in common. It was possibly disruptive enough that this {{afd}} should be speedy kept, and nominator(s) should initiate new {{afd}} -- one at a time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not getting ahead of yourself there somewhat? "examined first by a magistrate judge" means "he takes a look at the case" not "he deals with an entire trial related to gitmo people". In England and Wales we have a system where serious crimes are looked at first by a magistrate to check that, yes, it is worth sending it to the Crown Court. That doesn't mean that the magistrates who deal with that element of a noted case suddenly become notable. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I do not think I am getting ahead of myself. How close a look have you taken at the rulings Alan Kay made? His rulings were cited over and over again in Guantanamo captive habeas corpus petitions. Maybe you consider habeas corpus petitions trivial, beneath notice? Is so these ones are the exceptions. So far three, count-em, three of their habeas petitions have arrived at the SCOTUS. So, no, they aren't trivial. I remain concerned that you approved the adding of a bunch of individuals with little in common to your original nomination. I continue to see this as disruptive. And I would appreciate you responding to that concern. Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favour and read WP:DISRUPTIVE. There's my response. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have read it. I suggest Geoff Ploude's addition of other individuals, because they too were magistrate judges could be seen as WP:POINTy. He was in favor of keeping Nandor Vadas, and didn't see why other magistrate judges shouldn't face deletion as well. You endorsed his addition, which, I suggest, also could be seen as WP:POINTy. I suggest that it could be considered that rather than challenging his addition of the other individuals you called his bluff. These individuals are all different. I suggest no one who wants to offer an informed opinion can do so in a single response that applies to all of these individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to see Vadas kept, I believe that the point Ironholds raised (automatic notability of magistrate judges) deserves discussion in context. It is better to have one discussion in terms of all magistrate articles then to have the same discussion six or seven different times. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this discussion to the following two deletion sorting stubs because of the key role Alan Kay has played in the Guantanamo habeas petitions. Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for John M. Facciola -- I know we are only supposed to express one keep, delete, merge opinion. But that doesn't work for me when the individuals have so little in common. So I am going to go through them one at at a time.
Still, it makes big news when the White House claims months of e-mails may have gone missing, and Facciola is the magistrate trying to sort out that case with the oversize name, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Executive Office of the President. Geo Swan (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Paul Grimm -- I continue to be concerned over the disruptive nature of approving the adding of multiple individuals with little in common to an {{afd}} that was already in progress. According to one of the references Grimm found himself called upon to make a ruling in an area no previous judge had ever ruled on -- when should evidence in digital form be considered "authentic". IANAL, but won't this mean that all kinds of judges, including more senior judges, cite his ruling?
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a judge must determine whether a piece of electronic evidence is authentic and original, an issue no court had really touched on, even though digital evidence is easily manipulated. In looking at the potential electronic evidence in Lorraine, Grimm had to consider such fundamental questions as: What is a document? In a 52-page opinion, he found five distinct evidentiary issues one side must cross to prove whether electronic data should be admitted into evidence at trial or accepted as an exhibit (see “Grimm’s Issues of ESI”) Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Notability[edit]

The following question forms the locus of this AfD and is an issue worthy of discussion. The result is applicable to each and every magistrate judge article, hence their nomination for deletion.

Does a U.S. Magistrate Judge, a federal judicial officer under the authority of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, automatically become notable by virtue of position?

Yes A MJ has the authority to hear all non felony cases on referral. Because of the amount of cases they hear, they form an integral part of the U.S. judiciary. In addition to arraignment and warrant functions, they can instruct juries, sentence offenders, and make binding orders. They are not just court clerks or temporary judges, regardless of fixed terms of appointment. The fact that they don't serve for life is moot, because state supreme court judges in the US serve for terms and are generally considered notable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? In the United Kingdom County Court judges can instruct juries, sentence offenders and make binding orders - Justices of the Peace can do the last two. They are hardly significant powers within the judiciary. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rural magistrates also have almost full judicial powers because of the expense of sending a matter to the District Court for trial. The only cases they won't hear are felony trials. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Magistrate Judges are not explicitly exempted by having their notability challenged -- like heads of state and members of national legistlatures, then I don't think Nandar Paras, David Nuffer and Arlene Rosario Lindsay don't have sufficient references to merit an article of their own. If Magistrate Judges are explicitly exempted then this whole {{afd}} should be withdrawn. Alan Kay, John M. Facciola and Paul W. Grimm, IMO, would merit coverage whether Federal judges are all considered notable. I continue to believe amalgamating all these individuals in a single {{afd}} is a mistake, because they do not have enough in common. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoff Plourde: "A MJ has the authority to hear all non felony cases on referral." No, an MJ has the authority to hear all petty offenses in referral; and misdemeanors only if the defendant agrees. "The fact that they don't serve for life is moot, because state supreme court judges in the US serve for terms and are generally considered notable." Well, "moot" means debatable, so I agree that it is moot in that sense. But more to the point, state supreme court judges are, well, supreme. In contrast, magistrate judges are, to use the constitutional word, inferior, which is pretty much the opposite of "supreme." TJRC (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, defendants don't necessarily have a choice. Where I live, all non felony matters are referred to the magistrate automatically and remain there. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know where you live; powers of magistrate judges may be different outside of the U.S. My observations are limited to the U.S., and my position in this discussion is limited to U.S. magistrate judges. In the U.S., other than for petty offenses, a magistrate judge can only try the case with consent of the defendant. See 18 USC 3401(b):

(b) Any person charged with a misdemeanor, other than a petty offense may elect, however, to be tried before a district judge for the district in which the offense was committed. The magistrate judge shall carefully explain to the defendant that he has a right to trial, judgment, and sentencing by a district judge and that he may have a right to trial by jury before a district judge or magistrate judge. The magistrate judge may not proceed to try the case unless the defendant, after such explanation, expressly consents to be tried before the magistrate judge and expressly and specifically waives trial, judgment, and sentencing by a district judge. Any such consent and waiver shall be made in writing or orally on the record.

TJRC (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in California, and the local district classifies all misdemeanors as petty offenses. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that that is correct. Petty defenses are defined by statute, see 18 USC 19, add'l info in § 3559 and § 3571; a petty offense is essentially one with less than a six-month term of imprisonment and a fine of less than $5000. This is a statute, not a rule, and nothing suggests that a local district may by rule modify the statute to remove a very clear protection afforded to defendants by Congress. Where are you getting your information? Which district are you referring to? (California has 4: Northern, Southern, Eastern and Central.) In any event, even if you were to be correct, this would simply mean that magistrate judges are the federal equivalent of a municipal judge in those state systems that have municipal courts; as opposed to being even less powerful than muni judges. In either event, the position itself does not merit per se notability. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the Northern District Local Criminal Rules that says anything like you claim. In fact, local rule 58.1, dealing with what cases a Magistrate Judge can hear, starts with "Subject to the limitation of 18 U.S.C. § 3401...", i.e., subject to the limitations including the portion quoted above that limits them to petty offenses unless the defendant consents. Where are you getting your information that this is not the case? Neither the United States Code nor the Northern District's local rules support what you're saying. According to both, the MJ's power to hear cases is lesser than that of a municipal judge in most states. TJRC (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. MJ is not a position that makes its occupant inherently notable.

An MJ has no power to try felonies. This is similar to a lowly municipal court judge in most states' systems.
An MJ has no power to try misdemeanors, other than petty offenses, except by the consent of the defendant. This is less than the power of the lowly municipal court judge.
An MJ is not an Article III judge position. It is an Article I judge position, stemming from Congress's power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
As an Article I position, the judges are not lifetime appointees. They get eight-year terms. In fact, they're forced out when they're 70.
MJs are not appointed by the President. They're appointed by district court judges, who are the lowest level of Article III judges.
MJs are not subject to Senate confirmation; they are, in the terms of Article II, "inferior officers"
MJs do not need to be impeached to be removed from office. They can be removed if the Judicial Conference simply determines "that the services performed by his office are no longer needed." You don't need impeachment by the House of Representatives and a trial by the Senate; just a majority of the judges in the district.
MJs are federal judges only by coincidence of the word "judge" in the title, and are really no more "judges" than that guy who lost the pants lawsuit, who was an "administrative law judge." Heck, they weren't even called magistrate judges until 1968; for the first couple-hundred years of the U.S., they were court "Commissioners".

In sum, the MJ position is lower than that of the lowest state court judge, and is not in any way a federal judge except by coincidence of naming, with very few powers. The position does not in and of itself inherently convey notability. However, some particular magistrate judges (e.g., Alan Kay, apparently, based on the discussion here) may be notable; their MJ position may be a factor in determining their notability, but it is much more what they've done in the position that potentially makes them notable. TJRC (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and renominate independently I do not think it can be reasonably maintained that US Magistrate judges are automatically notable the way US District Court judges are. But sometimes they are, and a group nomination of them all has the usual problems of unequal notability. Such a nomination shows, at best, carelessness, in not examining adequately the different articles DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Separately. I agree with DGG. Each Magistrate Judge's notability should be assessed on his or her individual merits. TJRC (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Separately as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 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.

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 Casting vote Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida safe house, Karachi[edit]

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. safe houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and more evidence needs to be provided before the inclusion of this article is acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Here I find 13 different people accused whose detention in Guantanamo Bay is justified by the United States on the basis they stayed in this waypoint house...it is no more an "indiscriminate" list than List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless exact location of the "guest house" is properly referenced (grin). Seriously, if it's about a house than be specific, provide address or at least GPS coords. If it's about any house in Karachi, delete. What's next, Drug Den in London or it's a one-off coattrack run?NVO (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those. In the interest of brevity I won't repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Among the different suspected safehouses/guesthouses intelligence analysts describe some very important documents were seized from raids of the Karachi house(s). Computers were seized during these raids that contained lists of names that intelligence analysts concluded were members of al Qaeda. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have coverage of those seizures that pass WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources in this article that discuss the safe house in significant detail, as WP:RS requires? Ravenswing 02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure you honestly believe this. And I honestly believe you are mistaken. Please consider what we know about what American intelligence analysts believe about the Karachi safehouses and guesthouses from just one captive -- Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani. His allegation memos listed almost three dozen allegations related to his management of six Karachi safe houses. Three of his four allegation memos stated he managed these safe houses under the direction of a senior al Qaida leader. But the earliest memo says he managed them under the direction of Khalid Shayhk Mohammed, the number three in al Qaida, believed to be the brains behind the USS Cole bombing, and the attack on 9-11. He is alleged to have hosted seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers and five of the USS Cole bombers. Bomb-making courses were supposed to have been held in the houses he managed. From his memos we know one safe house he managed was a "two-story house near the Karachi, Pakistan airport in a community called, Wireless Gate." We know another was "in the Rabia City area of Karachi". Yet another was "located at Gulshan I-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan to edit video tapes and produce video discs from the tapes." A fourth was in the "Mehmoodabad neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan." The one where he lived with a planner of the USS Cole bombing was "in the Defense View neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan". The one where he was captured was "at Sonia apartments on Tariq road in Karachi, Pakistan..." We know these American analysts believe these safe houses were used to build timers for time bombs. We know American intelligence analysts believed some of these safehouses were used to hide and nurse injured fighters. A list can be found at Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses Would it be better to know more about these safe houses? Sure. But we have articles on topics where our references supply incomplete knowledge from all fields of knowledge, like, for instance, sub-atomic and the theories about them. You wouldn't suggest we hold off on creating articles on subatomic particles because we have unanswered questions about them, would you? Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely missing the point. Again. The problem isn't that the article is incomplete; the problem is that the article fails the most basic test of inclusion. On multiple articles you and other users have been asked to prove exactly how important the articles you are touting are and have been repeatedly failing to do so, instead slipping away and replying with answers that don't actually answer the query. I indeed "honestly believe" 1) that this article fails the WP:GNG and 2) that it is required to pass it and 3) that Sherurcij's argument is on "arguments to avoid". 2 and 3 aren't opinion, they are fact, and since you've done nothing to dispute 1 I see no reason why I shouldn't keep honestly believing it. Your example with sub-atomic particle theory is a false one; I am looking for notability, not completeness. If a theory of sub-atomic particles was so unimportant that the author can't meet the incredibly high standard of two third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in some length then it's probably bullshit. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to WP:GNG, it has five bulleted points: "Significant coverage"; "Reliable"; "Sources,"; "Independent of the subject"; "Presumed". I think all those criteria are satisfied. You think they aren't. I have tried my best to address your concerns, at a very considerable cost of my time. So would it be possible for you to refrain from using inflammatory wording like I am "slipping away" from answering your concerns? Would it be possible for you to be specific about how you think the the article fails to satisfy those criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage". WP:GNG requires the sources to give "significant coverage" each - you've found passing mentions of the safe house. The reason the article consists entirely of "things found in a safe house in Karachi" is because 1) that's all the information you found and 2) that is because the sources are about people who stayed at the safe house, not the safe house itself. We don't even know if they're the same house! Karachi has a population of over 18 million - they could well be different places, but because the sources aren't even about the safe house(s) we can't even verify something as basic as that. To go back to the core problem, though, there is no significant coverage, just passing mentions in various documents which have been synthesised together. This fails both our notability guidelines and guidelines on original research. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So, first, you acknowledge that the other four criteria are satisfied? Second, how much time did you spend looking at Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's allegation memos? Twelve pages of memos. If you strip out the redundant parts of the four memos there are still two solid pages of allegations focused around his management of these safe houses. Karachi has a population of 18 million? I assumed it was at least a million. We know American intelligence analysts believed there were multiple safe houses. We know that their interrogation records listed six houses Rabbani was associated with. So, we don't know the exact number. Some of those six may have been the same houses, merely described differently. And some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with. But I don't see how this is a significant criticism. You dismissed my analogy with sub-atomic physics. Nevertheless, I will remind you we can cover quarks before scientists come to agreement as to whether there are 12 kinds, or 24, or 48. Same with string theory. Similarly, perhaps you could explain your interpretation of Synth. To describe something as a lapse from synth someone would have to introduce a novel confluence of ideas into article space. Similarly, original research requires the introduction of facts or interpretations not found in our sources. Neither of those is the case here. Going through a bunch of references, and covering what they say, without adding an original, unreferenced interpretation is just collation -- not original research. Geo Swan (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's original research - WP:SYNTH falls under original research. The article has taken references to "a safe house in Karachi", a city with a population of 18 million, and you've collated that into an article implying that there is a single Al-Qaeda safe house in Karachi - that's Synthesis. You've completely missed the point about quarks - we can cover quarks before scientists discover how many there are, yes. But if you want an article on the 24-quark model and there aren't at least two sources covering it in "significant detail" then it still fails. "some of the six may have been the same houses.. some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with"; speculation to back up synthesis. It is a significant criticism, since WP:GNG specifically says "'Significant coverage' means that ... no original research is needed to extract the content.". I acknowledge that the other four are fulfilled, but then I never said they weren't, and all five are required anyway. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." ; the sources do not address the subject directly (they're throwaway references when discussing something else) or in detail (they're single mentions in throwaway references while discussing something else). Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collation is not synthesis. As I wrote above both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR address the insertion of novel and unreferenced conclusions and interpretations. I do not believe this article contains any unreferenced conclusions or interpretations. Faithful and neutrally written citations of multiple references, without the insertion of novel interpretations is not SYNTH.
You have focused on things I wrote here on these {{afd}}s, and characterized them as lapses from WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. I believe you are making a mistake in doing so. Those policies bar the insertion of unreferenced personal opinion into our articles -- into article space. In our talk pages, and in discussion fora, like {{afd}}, where we discuss how to write articles, what belongs, what is important, and what is trivial, what doesn't belong, it is both routine and necessary to discuss opinions. Practically every single extended discussion over notability triggers the expression of unreferenced opinion. Even if, for the sake of argument, the policies also barred the good faith offering of unreferenced opinions in good faith efforts to discuss what belongs in article space, I suggest that those lapses should not be used to argue for the deletion of articles that don't lapse from those policies.
You say all five criteria need to be met. And you quote WP:GNG: "no original research is needed to extract the content". But then it seems to me yours is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the article. Intelligence analysts have written allegations that show what they believe about the houses they characterize as Karachi safe houses. And I believe the article faithfully and neutrally covers those allegations. Zero original research is needed to extract that content.
Your interpretation of the article is that the contributors who wrote it (mainly me) were trying to imply there was a single Karachi safe house. I don't believe the article says that. I don't believe there was a single al Qaeda safe house in Karachi. I take at face value that this is how you read the article. I suggest that would be an editorial issue, which I think you should have raised on the talk page. It is not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last statement is correct, but luckily that isn't why I nominated it for deletion; it's never been a core reason, it was merely an illustration of a point. I appreciate you've taken the time to respond to almost all my points, but again you've missed the main one. WP:GNG requires five points to be met. The first is "significant coverage", taken to mean " sources address the subject directly in detail". The sources do not address the subject directly (merely giving passing mentions while discussing something else) or in detail (they simply mention the "safe house in Karachi". My point about multiple/single safe houses was an illustration of the lack of detail available). Please explain how the sources you have provided fulfil the "significant coverage" requirement. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that I haven't shown "detailed" coverage surprises me. Back on the 25th I listed a half dozen detailed allegations, and requested you look at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses. I am going to repeat my request you look at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses. Please look at it, and then let me know whether you still believe that the coverage is not in detail. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of teenty tiny comments are not detailed coverage. If the article was on Abdul Al-Rahim then that'd be fine, but all that adds to the article is "while staying at the safehouse, Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam a) did this, b) did that, c)...". It's the difference between a book on Perth and a book on Lord Mansfield that lists all the things he did on Perth. Technically, Perth has coverage, but it doesn't mean we can create an article that'll pass WP:GNG when it almost entirely consists of "stuff Lord Mansfield did in Perth". Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer this as well by repeating the answer from my talk page when you posed me the same question there: "I don't accept that they provide any detail at all beyond that they merely exist. C'mon ... you're not a rookie. You're an experienced editor of long standing, and it's almost beyond credulity that you consider a line like "The detainee was listed on a document recovered in safehouse raids associated with suspected al Qaida in Karachi" to mean that the source is about any given safehouse or discusses it in any detail whatsoever. This is the sort of argument we've both seen at AfD where the "reliable sources" a fanboy claims for his favorite garage band are nothing more than a one-line "Love Muscle is playing at Paul's Mall on Tuesday and Wednesday at 8 PM" buried in the arts and entertainment section of the local alternative weekly. We properly dismiss such arguments out of hand; why are you making them now? I don't get it." Ravenswing 10:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler way of saying it, actually - coverage of Abdul is detailed and substantial. Coverage of the safehouse is not. If we take away "stuff Abdul did at a safe house in Karachi" we're left with nothing, because all we know is based on things people did in relation to it. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that different from Perth, Western Australia and Perth, Tasmania? Couldn't someone come along and say, "everything in these articles is about something someone did at Perth. Captain James Stirling founded it; John Glenn flew overhead in Friendship 7; etc. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if that person was a moron. I can pull up the Perth, Western Australia article and see how many people live there, what the average temperature of the place is, that it's a seat of government, that's it's on The Economist Most Livable Cities list ... why, I can find hundreds of facts about Perth there, many which have nothing to do with someone doing something there. By contrast, let's take a look at this article. Other than these sources claiming that particular suspected terrorists used them, you can't tell us a single thing about them. You can't tell us where they are. You can't tell us what they look like. You can't say what neighborhoods they're in, what architectural significance they have (if any), what other people might live there, whether they're residences or businesses ... nothing. That is what makes all these articles unsustainable, and I'm baffled to the point of bewilderment that you haven't seen that. Ravenswing 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe your comment about only using references in articles when their main topic is the topic of the article, is consistent with how references are used on the wikipedia. Documents, including the source documents we reference in our articles, routinely talk about more than one topic. If we applied your proposed rule here to all wikipedia articles, we would have quality control volunteers weighing in, and telling other contributors, "You can't use this reference in the articles on P.T. Barnum, circus, or elephant, because it is already being used in the article on Jumbo".
That seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers stayed in Karachi guesthouses is not trivial. Their use as underground hospitals is not trivial. Their use as underground factories for the the manufacture of timers for time bombs is not trivial. The capture of a senior al-Qaeda leader's computers at one of the guesthouses, with key lists of al Qaeda members, is not trivial. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to have the article topic as their main topic, but they do have to have it as a topic, not something briefly mentioned in passing. I'm not saying it's trivia, I'm saying the mentions are - you don't have two paragraphs about how the 9/11 hijackers stayed in the house, and what else the house was used for, and how long the house has been operating, et al, you don't have coverage of the house, you have coverage of the hijackers which briefly mentions the house. I'm not saying it has to be the main topic, but it does have to be a topic. Right now you've given me multiple sources with trivial mentions, not multiple sources with significant mentions. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go back to Rabbani's memos. Half or more of the documents are about Rabbani's association with the safe house. Geo Swan (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're sentences about Rabbani which mention his association with the safe house, not sentences about the safe house. Sources don't have to have the article subject as the primary subject, but it does have to be a subject; show me one paragraph where the house itself is the subject. Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am doing my very best to take your concerns seriously. I am having a lot of trouble with this last one. If the safe houses weren't a subject of these documents, then how is it the documents have informed us about the safe houses in, as WP:GNG requires, "substantial detail"? Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - They haven't, they've informed us of the activities of people around the safe houses in some detail. What do we know about the safe house itself? Do we know where in Karachi it is, when it was set up, when it was closed down, whether it's a single house? No. We know absolutely nothing about the house itself because none of the sources are looking at it directly. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, all of the things you claim aren't in our sources actually are in our sources. Please, before claiming some fact you consider important is not in our references, take a moment, and actually read the list I prepared for you on the 25th at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses. I prepared this specifically to answer your questions. It took several hours to do so. Frankly, I am mystified as to why you keep making these incorrect assertions, about what is missing from the references. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The article still falls short of "significant coverage", and quite frankly I echo Ravenswing's mysticism over why a long-term Wikipedian is making such obviously flawed arguments (see his point above). I can only assume it is because you wrote the article and will jump through any hoop, however ridiculous, to get it kept. In any case, we're not going to agree here since we seem to have completely different ideas as to how the notability guidelines are to be interpreted; I would suggest leaving it here. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wonder if, in the history of the wikipedia, anyone has ever started a comment with: "I am surprised that a contributor of your experience would..." that wasn't followed by a uncollegial comment. I won't respond in kind. I will remind you that arguments for deletion are supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on concerns with the current state of the article. Yet you are arguing for deletion, based on the current state of the article, even though every concern you have raised has been addressed, multiple times here in this discussion. You wrote about what you could assume about my motives. That is counter-policy. We are supposed to discuss the issues, not speculate about the character, personal judgment, intelligence or imagined hidden motives of those we disagree with. With some effort I am going to decline to respond in kind with speculation about your character, judgment or hidden motives. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you'd addressed my concerns properly I wouldn't be discussing this, would I? My argument is not and has never been based on the current state of the article, other than a minor quibble about synthesis which is not the main issue. I note that you said nothing about Sherurcij's personal comments above; is it because it wasn't directed at you, or simply because he's on your side in this discussion? Hypocrisy much? Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues. Geo Swan (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well done for dodging the point there. I'll reiterate; you're complaining about personal comments made by Ravenswing and myself. Where's your damning reply to Sherurcij's earlier ones? We're obviously not going to agree here and have different ideas of what "significant" is - lets just drop it. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues. Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Stop trying to bait me. Our comments on content issues don't agree and are unlikely to, since we have different ideas of what the word "significant" in WP:GNG should mean. Lets leave it here. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A catch all article about any instance of location being called a safe house. I'm going with WP:GNG Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be specific about which of the five points in WP:GNG you think this article does not satisfy? Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have said this several times in several of these discussions. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Ravenswing 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that has been repeated here. However, it seems to me that those repetitions have been bereft of any meaningful explanation as to why the details in the references that I suggested were significant and substantial, weren't significant and substantial. Geo Swan (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only question seems to be about the extent of coverage, and whether it is significant-- examining the sources themselves, I find that taken all in all they talk sufficiently about this to write an article. The possibility of combining this article with other similar ones should be kept in mind, however, BTW, I do not think that the section on people Listed on a list found in a safe house is sufficient connection to include them here in such detail. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 29 August 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.

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 Casting vote: Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fand training camp[edit]

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Military bases are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that I have nominated multiple articles for deletion with the same rationale - I have not tied them together, because they are not the sort of thing that can be assessed en masse. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see now this is a series. THere's not enough information for independent articles so I would merge these together into a list of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- I started most of the articles on Afghan training camps -- over three years ago. As I was reading through the documents from the Guantanamo captives' documents I kept coming across the captives whose continued detention was justified by allegations they had attended a training camp in Afghanistan. I didn't know when I played a role in starting this series that some of the camps would turn out to be mentioned only once. Those DOD documents weren't searchable then. (The most important half of the documents are searchable now, courtesy of the NYTimes.) Some of the camps are mentioned only once. Over one hundred individuals are alleged to have attended the al Farouq training camp. Dozens of individuals are alleged to have attended Tarnak Farms, and have attended the Khalden training camp, have attended the Derunta training camp, and the "Uyghur training camp". I don't regret starting these articles. I continue to think the camps alleged to have trained many individuals merit individual articles. I think a strong argument can be made to preserve individual articles about all the camps alleged to have trained 9-11 hijackers. I think a strong argument can be made to preserve individual articles about any camp described in reports from newspapers or elsewhere. I now think other camps, with only one or two alleged attendees, and should be merged, and redirected, preserving the revision history of the redirects -- in case more references emerge. Frankly, I don't think a discussion of where the dividing line between the camps that each unquestionably merit an individual article, and those that merit redirection, belong in an {{afd}} discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge until more information becomes available on individual ones. In principle, they can each probably justify an article, but there's no point doing it with the limited available material. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:06, 30 August 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.

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 Casting vote: Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida guest house, Kabul[edit]

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

This is a textbook example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a list of people who are alleged to have stayed in an Al-Quaeda safehouse. It fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. safe houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and more evidence needs to be provided before the inclusion of this article is acceptable.Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Here I find 32 different people accused whose detention in Guantanamo Bay is justified by the United States on the basis they stayed in this waypoint house...it is no more an "indiscriminate" list than List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly misleading name. Apparently any house in Kabul ransacked by NATO soldiers fits this description. Delete unless exact location of the "guest house" is properly referenced (grin). NVO (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please. Are you saying that if this article was entitled Al Qaida guest houseS, Kabul, you would have voiced a different opinion? If your problem is the name, wouldn't the obvious solution be a rename, not deletion? I contributed most of the material in this article. I didn't intend it to be about a single, particular guesthouse. I intended it to be about the limited number of guesthouses that intelligence analysts termed suspicious. Kabul, the capital of Afhganistan, is a large city. I am sure it has hundreds of guesthouses, possibly over a thousand guesthouse, but the number of guesthouses the intelligence analysts are interested in is a much smaller group. With regard to "exact location" -- we cover topics, in other fields, where we have less than complete knowledge. Consider the physics of sub-atomic particles, and string theory. You wouldn't argue that we shouldn't cover string theory because we have more questions than answers? We have verifiable information on some of the conventionally accepted aspects of string theory. For those important topics we should cover what we know, even when our knowledge is incomplete. And I think we should do the same here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, plural will be just as useless and unencyclopedic. Providing encyclopedic content will need an in-depth look at how the system operates - don't list those connected to the subject, explain the subject. An article on Nazi concentration camps, for example, does not start with a list of inmates; there are plenty of RS that back up a proper description. Perhaps, in the absence of reliable sources on the topic, it wasn't worth working on, was it? NVO (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitled to make it clear we are discussing a network, not an individual house. Possibly expand, to the network for all their safe houses in the area, not just those in one city. Major military bases such as their training camps are notable, but probably not individual houses. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any kind of policy- or guideline-based rationale in your comment? Ironholds (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, and WP:N for not having separate articles. WP:N and WP:V, for the existence of these houses as a group & there being enough sources in the aggregate. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't cover it. WP:N requires significant coverage of the subject, what we've got here is brief mentions. Ironholds (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those. In the interest of brevity I won't repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others. Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This nomination asserts the article is: "a textbook example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE". I just checked WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I found it had list five different classes: Plot-only descriptions, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports, FAQs. No offense, but I don't see how this article could be described as any of those classes. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This nomination challenges the references used in the article, apparently challenging whether they are reliable, or independent. The "independence" requirement is that the references be independent from the subject of the article. If the documents we were citing were written by al Qaida, then our references would not be "independent", as per the wording of the policy. Documents written by anyone else ARE independent of the subject of the article. So, I suggest that this aspect of the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of policy. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've challenged it under the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added additional material on claims made in late 2001 and early 2002 that documents abandoned in Al Qaeda safehouses in Kabul shows the progress Al Qaeda was making in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are coverage of the documents and the WMDs, not the safe house. Holy shit, look, the references mention the name of the guy who typed up the report! Shall we have an article on him now? After all, he's mentioned 100 times, which is all the "significant" coverage we need according to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And Los Alamos is only the lab where atom scientists worked on the first atom bomb. Yet we cover the lab where they did the work.
    
    Yes, in some cases we cover the author of a report. How many reports are known by the name of the primary author? Answer? Lots. In some cases those authors merit coverage. Whether we cover the author depends on the the author's mandate, how much scope and initiative they were called upon for, whether the conclusions were controversial, whether they had been called upon to draft other controversial reports. But, since we are discussing Al Qaeda's Kabul safe houses here, let's have a discussion about when the authors of reports merit their own articles at some other time and place. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I find the nominations challenges to the reliability of the references illustrates a very different understanding of the wikipedia's policy on verifiability than my own. If a non-notable blogger makes assertions about someone -- that is unreliable. When a government agency makes an assertion it is reliable that, at least, that this is the government agency's official position. WP:VER says we aim for what is verifiable, not what is true. It seems to me that what our nominator is really challenging is whether the government's assertions are accurate. Determining whether the assertions in a official government document are reliable is not our role. During the last American administration some politically appointed officials were criticized for politicizing science. They were criticized for reinterpreting the scientific conclusions of professional scientists. The one I remember best was the re-interpretation of the professional conclusions of professional scientists, on global warming. The documents this political appointee rewrote were widely regarded "unreliable" from a purely factual point of view. But, IIRC, what was not in dispute was that while the appointed official lacked the expertise to reliably rewrite the conclusions of professional scientists, he did have the chart of organization authority to rewrite those documents, and that his rewrites had become the official position of those agencies. I suggest we would then, and still would now, state that, at the time he rewrote those conclusions those were the official positions of his agency. We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, no matter how widely doubted its factual reliability was. We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, based on our own personal doubts over its factual reliability. To do so would be to lapse from WP:VER and WP:NPOV. Suppressing neutral material over our own personal doubts over its factual reliability is, IMO, a form of editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination is based on WP:N, not WP:V. I accept that we can verify the information that we've got, the problem is that the sources, while good enough to verify this, don't cover the subject enough to pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppressing neutral material?" Material about what? These sources do nothing more than assert that safe houses exist. No sources have been proffered doing anything else. Since when is WP:ITEXISTS a valid argument to Keep at AfD? Ravenswing 02:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, Sherurcij. You speculate, without a shred of evidence to support that speculation, that after three years sources which discuss these particular guest houses in detail will emerge. Muddling the issue with irrelevant parallels - the former president of a sovereign nation is prima facie notable, whether there are fifty sources or none - doesn't much help. When all is said and done, your arguments aren't, as they should be, about whether or not these articles meet the policies and guidelines for inclusion. You're arguing why the policies should be interpreted to permit the articles you like to stick around, and this isn't the proper venue to debate that. Ravenswing 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. 08:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be specific about which of the five points in WP:GNG you think this article does not satisfy? WP:SYNTH bars the tying together of WP:RS to introduce novel interpretations not present in the orginal WP:RS. Since no novel interpretations have been introduced here I believe you are incorrect to name SYNTH as a problem here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've generally asserted through the article that there's a single guest house in Kabul, and done this by tying together dozens of one-sentence references. Synthesis. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I trust that this is honestly how you read the article. I don't believe that there was just a single al Qaeda guest house. I don't believe that I wrote that there was just a single al Qaeda guest house. "Guest house" and "safe house" are always referred to in the plural, or specific instances are referred to as "a guest house". But if you honestly read the article as if it asserts that there was just a single al Qaeda guest house, this is an editorial concern that I believe you should have raised on the talk page instead of nominating the article for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I would have done that if it was my primary concern, but as I've told you multiple times, it was not. I'm not raising that issue here, simply predicting what Niteshift's response to you would probably have been. Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) WP:NOTCRYSTAL -- could you let other contributors speak for themselves? (2) If you are going to be making nominations for deletion, would you consider clearly placing your primary concern in your initial nomination? Every time I spend my time countering some point of yours, you say: "Yeah, but that was never my primary concern." Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, I cunningly hid my concern in the sentence "It fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". I understand that such a complex and difficult enigma is hard to puzzle through. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 29 August 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.

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 Casting vote: Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aqua military training camp[edit]

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Military bases are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that I have nominated multiple articles for deletion with the same rationale - I have not tied them together, because they are not the sort of thing that can be assessed en masse. Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it somewhere. It seems worth including, but I don't see notability or a need for an independent article. Can it be merged to the guy associated with it? A list of terror camps? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of training camps is difficult since many are "absolutely beyond any claim of non-notability", though a List of minor training camps is possible, although I don't think advisable. The safe houses might be a better choice for a list-form. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those which should be merged and redirected. In the interest of brevity I won't repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge until more information becomes available on individual ones. In principle, they can each probably justify an article, but there's no point doing it with the limited available material. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:06, 30 August 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.

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. While I appreciate the passionate keep arguments, I have to remind the keep side that notability of the subject must exist in the present; the existence of the subject does not guarantee notability. In six months, or six years, when there has been more material published, we can recreate this article properly. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asil training camp[edit]

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Military bases are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that I have nominated multiple articles for deletion with the same rationale - I have not tied them together, because they are not the sort of thing that can be assessed en masse. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs.
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge until more information becomes available on individual ones. In principle, they can each probably justify an article, but there's no point doing it with the limited available material. Myself, I'm taken aback by the lack of consideration for the possibilities of dealing with this according to WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those that should be merged and redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 27 August 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.

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. I judge there to be consensus here that the known sources do not satisfy community norms concerning inclusion. Skomorokh 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect guest house, Jalalabad[edit]

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Guest houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that contrary to claims by certain users on similar AfDs I have no idealogical feelings I'm trying to push, and I am not trying to censor the wiki - I simply want to demand of these articles the same standards we demand for everything else. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, this again. Please withdraw your unwarranted personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that this article rests precariously on only primary sources, which, given that they call the guest houses "suspected" can't really be said to be reliable. So there is a WP:Verifiability problem. Also, the article says nothing more than "[person we have an article on] may have stayed in [ad hoc name] guest house". If we had an article on a mafiosi snitch, and somebody made an article entitled Suspected safe house, Baltimore, which stated that, prior to his testimony, the mafiosi stayed in an FBI safe house somewhere in Baltimore, such an article would be deleted without mercy. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, are you sure that the summary of evidence memos drafted for the Guantanamo captives' review proceedings should be considered primary sources? An interrogation log is a primary source. A transcript is a primary source. But these memos were drafted by author who reviewed, interpreted and summarized multiple documents from at least half a dozen military and civilian agencies. I think that documents that summarize, collate, and interpret multiple documents are the canonical examples of secondary sources. The Baltimore safe house analogy is so strained I don't think it is useful to address here -- so I will comment on it elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, these memos are primary sources. They are DoD legal documents that are allegedly findings of fact, not analytical. Abductive (reasoning) 08:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. No offense, but you are absolutely incorrect, on several points. First, you call the references "DoD legal documents". The DoD's official position was that the Guantanamo CSR Tribunals and annual reviews were not legal procedures -- many captives asked why they weren't allowed legal counsel at the Tribunals, and they were all routinely told they weren't provided with lawyers because they were "administrative procedures". Second,, you write that the references are "allegedly findings of fact, not analytical." Please read the affidavit written by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham. Abraham is a reservists called up for a hitch with the OARDEC. Although he is a lawyer in civilian life he is an intelligence analyst when on duty. Read his affidavit, and you will see, again and again, how the summaries were flawed because those tasked to analyze and summarize a large volume of documents from other agencies lacked the training and experience to perform that analysis effectively. Here is the master list of documents. The full unclassified dossiers from 179 captives' CSR Tribunals have been published. Those dossiers each contain a decision memo, which summarizes the documents that were analyzed, collated and summarized. The corresponding decision memos from several hundred of the annual reviews have been published. You need only review a couple of those to verify for yourself that the authors of the OARDEC memos reviewed, analyzed and summarized documents from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, Southern Command, the Office of Military Commissions, in addition to the Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. RGTraynor 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I'd like to suggest you are misquoting the requirements for the references we need. WRT "third party", if this article cited brochures published by these guesthouses, or the guesthouses online web-pages, those citations would not be third party references. Newspaper references would be third party, as would UN reports, or reports from a country like the USA. FWIW I have found a handful of Afghan guesthouses -- those that cater to foreign journalists or aid workers -- that do have web-sites. WRT "reliable sources" in all other articles government sources are taken as reliable -- reliable in that whatever they assert is the government's official position. You mention WP:V, a very important policy. If we are going to comply with WP:V we have to set aside our own personal interpretation of the credibility of what our references state. No offense, but it seems to me that your challenge to the reliability of these references is really a challenge to the credibility of what the references assert, and, as such, a lapse from WP:V. I am sure it is an inadvertent lapse however. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not challenging the reliability of the sources. I am challenging whether they are "Reliable Sources" per WP:RS, when the definition of a "reliable sources" is a source that substantively discusses the subject in question. It has long been held, and you have been around long enough to know this full well, that (using this article as an example) a sentence saying no more than "The detainee stayed in a Uighur guesthouse in Jalalabad" does not constitute substantive discussion of much of anything at all. Is this source about a particular "suspect guest house" in Jalalabad? No. Is this source about "suspect guest houses" at all? No. Do any of the sources discuss "suspect guest houses" in any substantive detail? No. Do the sources then qualify under WP:RS? No. I hope and trust you've rethought your inadvertent lapse. RGTraynor 02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sherurcij and I don't generally agree on conclusions, but I do agree that these pages are notable and merit keeping. The notability concern is misplaced, and the Google search is wrong. This obviously isn't about some ordinary person seeking free publicity.

First, the above suggested Google search for "Suspect guest house, Jalalabad" is incomplete. Not everyone who looks at this topic is going to think it's a "guest house" or that it's merely "suspected." I'd go with safehouse Jalalabad, which yields considerably more.

Second, the Google search on the "find sources" script used by the nominator puts quotes around the phrase. That makes it work only if the title is notable.

Moreover, this information is of value today. When news about a detainee comes out (such as finding that an ex-detainee is now out fighting again), it should be extremely interesting to find out which other detainees were at the same safe house, and whether they're also already out or being pushed for release.

I think Abductive is mistaken in his view of the word "suspected." They are definitely suspected of having been safehouses. That is true regardless whether those suspicions were considered reasonable by others. Even if lightning strikes and all the "guests" were suddenly proved innocent sheepherders, it should still be remembered that they were at one time suspected of being safehouses.

While secondary sources are a test for notability, they're only one test of the guideline. The guideline itself even includes "reports by government agencies." That's what this is anyway. The CSRTs are compilations of data for legal review, and not the original intelligence report. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This obviously isn't about some ordinary person seeking free publicity." - yup, never suggested it was. Your argument hasn't addressed the key point - that this article fails WP:GNG. If the page is, as you suggest, notable, it should be able to pass the basic standard of being covered by multiple independent, third-party sources in significant detail. It does not; it is covered by multiple independent, third-party sources in brief mentions. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have addressed it when I said, "While secondary sources are a test for notability, they're only one test of the guideline. The guideline itself even includes 'reports by government agencies.'" (Those last four words are a quote from the GNG guideline's footnotes.)

Your argument used the exact text of this article's name to imply this isn't a common topic. That's not a fair test because this article title is a compromise. In reality, there are plenty of safehouses in Jalalabad, but nobody calls them "Suspect guest house, Jalalabad."

Google returns 15,900 hits for "safehouse Jalalabad" (but without the quotes).

Furthermore, we have a number of links to this article. It's not an orphan.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"google has hits" is straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and the number of links to the article is completely irrelevant to its notability. You're misunderstanding my argument - the problem isn't that it isn't covered by sources, either primary or secondary - the problem is that it isn't covered in significant detail. The government reports make throwaway mentions while discussing things entirely separate from the guest house, and the information we do have consists entirely of "things people did at a guest house in jalalabad", because at no point is the guest house directly discussed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was you, with your "Find sources" link, who used the number of Google hits to say why you think it should be deleted. It's still right there at the top.

You also say U.S. government docs do not meet the requirement, and clearly they do.

Not every article on WP has or needs the detail you want. We have plenty of lists and timelines, and WP is better for it. This article is no different.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that link is automatically created by twinkle when making an AfD page - I didn't chose to include it. Secondly, it's for suggesting a source of sources, as it were - it is not saying that lots of google hits = notability. Please read my concern more closely; I am not saying that US government docs do not meet the requirement, and I am not saying that lists are not useful, or worthy of inclusion - I am saying that these US government docs do not meet the requirements of "significant" coverage per WP:GNG as at no point do they address the subject in any kind of detail (or even directly) and that this is evidenced by the fact that a list of things done at this/these house(s) is all we can include. I would respectfully ask you to read my critique more carefully in future. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry that I just assumed the Google results were intentional. But I read the guideline again, and still disagree on notability.

Your mistake is in thinking this is trivial information. It may seem that way to you, but it's not.

It would indeed be trivial if we had the raw original interrogation logs, and we took from that the types of meals the detainees were fed during their sessions. But these sources are concise legal reports. Everything they put in there was there for a good reason.

It's an important part of the "Summary of Evidence" used to decide whether or not someone should be held in GTMO for another year. They don't put trivia into them. There are probably some detainees who could have been released if not what it said in that field.

On the flip side, there are probably some people now dead because a detainee was released when that field had a less unsavory name in it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're missing the point. It isn't that these sources are "trivial" generally; they're often multi-hundred page documents. But these documents are not about the safe houses. In terms of the safe houses alone, they are indeed "trivial mentions" as Wikipedia defines them: they do not state where the houses are, they state no facts whatsoever about them except that terrorists are claimed to have stayed at a generic "guest" or "safe" house in X city. In order to qualify as a reliable source, a source must discuss the subject in "significant" detail. In any of these sources, where is the significant detail about these guest houses? Not about the terrorists, not about their activities, about the houses themselves? Nowhere. RGTraynor 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a better point if the Summary of Evidence documents were often multi-hundred page documents. That would indicate they're a minor detail. But these are typically only one page. The PDF itself may have hundreds of pages, but that's because they're combined with those of other detainees.

In other words, judging by the size of this detail, it's more significant than you thought.

FWIW: The safe house info applies to 24% of detainees' CSRTs. The U.S. military believes it to be significant.

It's true that this article doesn't describe the quality of the accommodations, but that's not what this article is about. As I said, it's more like a list or timeline article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention in a single line of a one-page document doesn't pass "significant" any more than it would if it was a multiple-page document. The article isn't a list, though - it's an article about the guest house, it's being portrayed as an article about the guest house, and at no point does it properly discuss the guest house. If the article was "list of things people did at a suspected guest house in jalalabad" then the references would be sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comparative size of the document clearly matters. The footnote on significant coverage compares books about a topic to a one sentence mention in a biography.

But this isn't only a single mention in a single line of one one-page document. It's a field used for every detainee known to have been in a safe house. In other words, it's multiple mentions throughout the detainee records that were used by the U.S. government to make these cases. You may not think it matters, but they do.

I don't care about a name change, but you can suggest one if you like. The term "Suspect guest house" was likely a compromise for giving a detainee some degree of presumption of innocence. No one came here expecting to find help making reservations.

We need to consider the ultimate users of this section of WP. You may not have an interest in the government's case, but others do. A lot of people believe GTMO detainees were simply taken off the streets for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If people genuinely want to know the reasons why detainees were held, they'll want a balanced picture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a flying fig about what the US government cares about, or what people care about. We do not include non-notable content just because some people may find it useful, or because one person subjectively believes it's required to give a balanced view to a situation. The sources altogether add up to about 20 pages, of which we've got maybe a line every two pages that actually references a safe house. I'd say that falls into "plainly trivial", particularly since at no point is the guest house actually the subject. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are here for those who do care. This reminds me of when someone deleted an entire section on the Order of Battle in a Vietnam War operation, with names of participating ships and carrier wings, because it was "uninteresting" to him.

I don't particularly care about ceramics but that doesn't mean I go into the associated articles and look for stuff to delete based upon what I think isn't important. I leave it for those interested in ceramics to decide what should be here.

It's notable. It's just not notable to you.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misunderstanding my point. I don't give a flying fig if you, the US Government and the entire Playboy calendar think it's notable if it doesn't pass WP:N. This was clearly set out in the comment you're replying to - again, I urge you to read what I write and actually answer my concern, to whit - it does not pass WP:GNG. Twelve lines in twenty pages is not enough for "significant", particularly when the twelve lines don't even have the guest house as the subject. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I get what you're saying now. I just don't agree that it doesn't pass WP:N. Those are 12 lines in short summary documents.

Admittedly, it is subjective. The guidelines only show extreme examples. I guess they decided to allow some wiggle room so that people who actually care about the subject can make their own determinations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting to some bias? :P. 12 lines in short summary documents - 12 lines in 20 pages worth of short summary documents. 12 lines in 20 pages, none of which deal with the subject directly. Please explain how 12 lines discussing things that happened at the guest house, spread over 20 pages of report and transcript, is "significant coverage" of the safe house, particularly (and this is the crux of the matter) when not a single source directly addresses the house. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "significant coverage" of the safe house itself. It is "significant coverage" of the safe house in relation to the detainees. The guidelines use a single line in a book as their obvious example of non-notability. This exceeds that.

The only thing in doubt is whether you think this topic is important without detailing the accommodations. I think it's important as it is.

I'll add that it would be satisfactory to me if we combined all the safe house lists into one. Of course, whatever annoys you about this article would probably annoy you just as much if it was combined. You obviously don't share my perspective on these things.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "annoyed" by the article, nor am I interested in sharing your perspective - unlike you, I prefer not to bring a bias and preconceived ideas about importance to the table. That's an incredibly poor argument - "the article gives one sentence in a book as an example of non-notability, this isn't a single sentence in a book, therefore it's notable"? So would two sentences in a book be acceptable, then? It doesn't give a hard-and-fast rule, and it isn't meant to. You're admitting that there's no significant coverage directed at the safe house, it's all about the detainees - so split this article, add the relevant sentences to the articles on the detainees and delete this. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of this subject is a matter being established by original research on the page. It does that fairly well, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Shii (tock) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I think there is an important distinction between simple collation, which is allowed and encouraged by our policies, and original research. If this article inserted original conclusions, not present in the original references, it would lapsing from the policy on Original research. If it tried to draw a conclusion between two or more referenced facts, not present in the articles references, that would be original research by synthesis. This article might be more interesting or more informative, if it had done either of those two things, but it would lapse from policy. I believe a useful policy compliant article is possible, without inserting original conclusions, or inserting an unreferenced synthesis. I believe this current version of this article doesn't lapse. Even if, for the sake of argument, I am blind to some portion of this document that did lapse from those two policies, the policy compliant response would be amend or remove the offending passages, not to delete the whole article. Suppose you were to start an article entitled something like World records set at the modern Olympics, and to write it you had to go to a bunch of WP:RS, and find the world records set at each Olympics. Selecting those races, and listing them all in one place would not be original research. If you were then to add your own personal interpretation, like "Fewer records were set at the Mexico and Peking Olympics because air pollution impaired athelete's performance -- but something for which there were no WP:RS, that would be original research. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The guantanamo documents justify the continued detention with hundreds of allegations that captives had stayed at suspicious guesthouses. Those allegations name dozens of specific guesthouses. We could try to cover all those dozens of guesthouses with a single article. But I am sure that would be of much less value to the legitimate and policy compliant needs of our readers. Consider the Uyghur guest house, one of the guesthouses addressed here, it was one of the key allegations leveled at the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, used to justify their detention from 2001 through 2008. Ten months ago, after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush restored habeas corpus to the captives, forced the executive branch to provide real evidence to back up their allegation, the Department of Justice quietly announced it would not try to provide that evidence, and would no longer try to defend the assertion that the Uyghur captives were "enemy combatants". Our readers are, I believe, entitled to look to us for what is known about the Uyghur guesthouse. Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid. Please feel free to include any sources which say anything about these guesthouses other than that they exist. RGTraynor 02:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article built solely on primary sources. There is pretty much no encyclopaedic content to the page - it is just a list of references to guest houses by US intelligience. If there was coverage in independent sources on the US stance of using staying at guesthouses as evidence against suspected terrorists, then there should be an article, but that hasn't been shown. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in the page being recreated at a later point if adequate sourcing does become apparent. In the meantime, we shouldn't rely on a synthesis of primary sources to create a topic. I agree, on a personal level, that the subject does seem an important one. However, we don't judge importance by personal feelings about a matter, but on whether the sources exist to write an encylopaedic entry. The history can always be undeleted at a later point, so it isn't permanently lost. Quantpole (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I'm with Quantpole. Subjects aren't notable because we want them to be. They qualify for articles on Wikipedia if they pass the consensus criteria for inclusion, which includes WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Is the subject of safe houses generally important? Yes, indeed, and there's an article already on them: Al-Qaeda safe house. RGTraynor 08:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue of course is that the article is not about guest houses or safe houses. A more accurate title would be Detention of Guantanamo captives based on residence at suspect guest houses, but that's a bit wordy! Quantpole (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Enough sources to add up to an article, but Ironholds does have a point about incidental mention--judging whether they are in toto substantial enough is not that easy. but I think it would be better if they were combined. In my opinion, Sherurcij is not quite correct that any subject is clearly "notable or not notable"--there are various degrees, and for subject that fall on the borderline, combining into a single article is a suitable way to go. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably fails WP:N. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, and quit copy-pasting deletion/keep rationale! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Our nominator has claimed that: "Twelve lines in twenty pages is not enough for "significant", particularly when the twelve lines don't even have the guest house as the subject." I am not challenging our nominator's good faith, but I believe his or her characterization of what the references say is highly misleading. Consider what Binyam Mohammed's third annual status review says about his stay in a Jalalbad guest house. Binyam Mohammed was one of the first captives to face charges before a military commission. He was alleged to have been part of a plot to explode dirty bombs in the USA. He faced two allegations, drafted in 2008, published in 2009, which says he stayed at a Jalalabad guest house that provided an explosives course. I dispute any characterization that this passage is "trivial", or a passing mention Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The detainee stated he arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan and contacted an associate of the head of the Algerian Training Camp outside of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. The detainee and the associate then traveled together to the Algerian guest house in Jalalabad.
- "The Algerian guest house in Jalalabad , Afghanistan is known to have hosted an explosives course. The course involved training on the theory of electronic circuitry involved in explosives."
Comment -- 220 of the 572 captives' who have had documents made public have references to Jalalabad. Some of those references to Jalalabad are not to guest houses in Jalalabad. And some of them are only passing references. Binyam Mohammed's was not. I believe other references clearly are not trivial passing mentions. In other similar {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one I addressed a concern I thought our nominator was making that collating significant details from multiple references constituted "original research". I suggested that it would only be original research if novel and unpublished interpretations were offered. Our nominator seemed to accept that point. I believe that collating significant and different details from multiple references can fulfill the requirement in WP:GNG for substantial coverage, and I believe the significant and different details collated from multiple reference here in this article fulfill that requirement. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I tried to make the point in some of the other {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time they initiated this one that we can start articles on topics where our knowledge is incomplete. I offered the example of string theory and sub-atomic particles. I have written a couple of essays that address this issue, using the first sockpuppet to be unmasked as a starting point. "Substantial coverage" does not mean readers won't realize there are unanswered questions about the topic. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: And that's an irrelevancy. Whether or not knowledge is "complete" here isn't the point. Whether people have questions generally about terrorism in the Middle East isn't the point. It's that none of these sources discuss any of these "guest houses" in any detail whatsoever. Binyam Mohammed's notability is not at issue, and I see he already has an article of his own. Claiming over and over again, in filibustering detail, that sources discuss in detail the subject that is the focus of this AfD when not a single one of them do is scarcely convincing. I'd recommend WP:KEEPCONCISE, myself. RGTraynor 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incompleteness was raised as an issue at the other similar {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one. I think that makes it a point worth addressing here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT to your comment about Binyam Mohammed's notability. Unfortunately the wikipedia has very weak attempt to address a fundamental design idea. This comes up at {{afd}}s all the time -- and is routinely ignored. No offense but I believe your comment reflects one far from optimal design philosophy. WP:NOTPAPER. Yes, Binyam Mohammed has an article. So does the dirty bomb plot. At least three other individuals are alleged to have a role in the dirty bomb plot, Majid Khan, Jose Padilla and Abu Zubaydah. They all have articles too. It would be a mistak to try to shoehorn what we know about the dirty bomb plot into any of the articles on the individuals alleged to have been involved in it. And it would be a mistake to try to merge the articles on those individuals into the article on the dirty bomb plot. Abu Zubaydah was the registrar of the Khalden training camp. It would be a mistake to try to shoehorn what we know about him into the article about the camp, or vice versa. Ibn Al Sheikh Al Libi was also an officer of the Khalden camp. Have you ever had to try to get information from the raw dump of a database that has crashed? It is possible. All the basic information is in there. And if you are prepared to spend hours manually following the pointers, you can get at info that you could get at within seconds, if the database hadn't crashed. What that shows is that half or more of the value of that information lies in the links between the information in the database, not in the raw information itself. And exactly the same holds true for the wikipedia. The real power of the wikipedia lies in its wikilinks. Yes, Binyam Mohammed has an article, and yes, that article should have some mention of the connection between him, and Jalalabad guest houses. But to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that all the information about Jalalabad guest houses should be in the article about Binyam Mohammed would be a grave disservice to our readers, because the Jalalabad guest houses are notable for other reasons beyond the alleged bomb training courses available to Binyam Mohammed. At least one of the houses is alleged to have been run by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. At least one is alleged to have been run by the Tunisians. At least one is alleged to have been run by Algerians. At least one is alleged to have been run by Uyghurs. And at least one is alleged to have been run by "Arabs" (Afghans, Pakistanis and Iranians, while muslims, aren't Arabs). At least one is alleged to have been a Taliban transit house. The allegations also state that military training took place at at least one Jalalabad house. The allegations also state that at least one Jalalabad house was used to house graduates of the Al Farouq training camp. Please explain why you do not recognize this as substantial coverage. I suggest that the dozen or so articles I mentioned in this comment should all have a link to an article about Jalalabad guest houses. Trying to put the information about the connection between each of those other topics and its Jalalabad guest house(s) would deny our readers of the knowledge of the other Jalalabad guest houses. I frankly don't understand how you can justify denying our readers access to that information. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the information doesn't fulfil WP:GNG. Frankly it's sad to see a long-standing wikipedian resort to subjective "but it's important for our readers to have access to this!" arguments. Give Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions a read. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You called on me to re-read the WP:ATA essay. When was the last time you re-read WP:ATA#Arguments to the person? I made several points, which you have avoided addressing, and the one counter-argument you offered is based on a misinterpretation of my meaning. I am going to offer you the courtesy of assuming that your mischaracterization of my comment above was a good faith mistake. I encourage you to respond with civil, meaningful, substantive responses to comments on content issues, and to avoid offering judgments on others' personalities. If you can't do that perhaps it would be best if you simply kept your judgments of others to yourself? Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your counterpoint was that the sources indeed fulfil the "significant" requirement - that was my main concern, and that was your main response. Since you made that response I've repeatedly argued that your counter-argument is ineffective. Your various points have either a) not been directed at the main concern or b) been directed at the main concern, but are not, in my opinion, persuasive arguments. Either way I have responded to your comments - the only one who's avoided addressing arguments is you, who has repeatedly brought up the idea that I find the article not being "complete" a problem, something I've never said. We obviously aren't going to agree on the "significant" point, as I've repeatedly said, so unless you have an explanation about where you found the "it doesn't cover everything" argument I'd suggest we leave it. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but your counter-arguments have alternated between tacitly acknowledging that my counter-arguments to your points were valid, but then claiming those points I effectively rebutted weren't your main point -- or claiming I was avoiding answering your main point -- or making what my pure math buddies would call a "proof by assertion", that is, your point was valid because you said it was valid. You assert the article lapses from WP:GNG without clearly saying why. If your secondary points aren't that important, just don't raise them.When you run out of counter-arguments say: "I felt strongly about this, but since I have run out of counter-arguments, so maybe I was wrong". Or when you run out of counter-arguments, say: "I can't explain why, but I still feel strongly this article should be deleted". When they run out of counter-arguments many wikipedia contributors just walk away. That is not ideal, but it is better than stooping to WP:ADHOM arguments. When you have run out counter-arguments don't stoop to WP:ADHOM. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At no point has the lack of completeness been an issue. Stop filibustering and deal with the heart of the matter here. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "heart of the matter"? Your initial nomination(s) asserted a failure to fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG. It is I addressed. Some other respondents here have repeated your assertion, without addressing my counter-arguments. I don't consider it "filibustering" to offer civil and meaningful response to challenges. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-arguments were insufficient, hence my long-standing rejection of them. At what point was the article not being "complete" a problem? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone past mere bullshit and approaches the surreal. Bothering to read (never mind respond to) this filibustering flurry of irrelevancies and obfustications is certainly doing me no good and does the encyclopedia no good. I'll leave this to the closing admin to sort through. RGTraynor 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is so incomplete and so dependent on a single series of sources that I don't know how it can be repaired. First of all, the article is about Suspect guest ''houses'', Jalalabad, not about a single house. Second, the article repeatedly states that various detainees faced allegations that they stayed in certain guest houses, but there is nothing to indicate what the detainees said in response to that -- "I never stayed there"? "Yes, I stayed there, but it's an ordinary guest house, not a terrorism house"? "There is no such house in Jalalabad"? Nor do we get any indication of where in Jalalabad these houses are located, how big they are, how many people they can accommodate at once, or anything else that would help identify or describe the houses themselves. The point of this article seems to be to discredit the U.S. government's claims about these houses, and I don't know how to improve it to achieve a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I believe all of the concerns you have expressed here are content or editorial concerns, which, more properly, should be discussed on the talk page. (1) Should the name of the article refer to "houses" in the plural? Sure. That was a (minor) lapse on the part of the person who started the article (me), and it is one that can be trivially fixed. (2) Should this article offer the captives' response to the allegation that they stayed in the guest house? Maybe. Or maybe that kind of response, which could be lengthy, belongs in the article on the captive. Again, I think this is a content concern, and that the appropriate place to discuss this would be on the talk page, not in an {{afd}} -- and I do not believe this kind of concern should be grounds for deletion. (3) WRT to where in Jalalabad the houses were, what they looked like, how many people they were capable of housing... These are all good questions. But when did we start nominating articles for deletion because our references leave unanswered questions? (4) As to whether the current version of the article "discredits the U.S. government's claims"... When our articles are neutrally written the conclusions our readers come to are never the "wrong" conclusions. Drawing their own conclusions from neutrally written material is what is supposed to happen when readers read wikipedia articles. I honestly believe that this article complies with both the letter and the spirit of all the wikipedia's policies. In particular I believe the article contains zero editorializing. Our deletion policies contain various recommendations for how we should respond when we perceive a bias. Deletion is not one of the recommended responses. Expressing one's concern on the talk page is always a good first step. In some other discussions some contributors have argued for the deletion of material not because they could make a case it wasn't neutrally written, but because readers might draw the "wrong" conclusion from it. I would be very interested in having a meaningful discussion with anyone who thinks they can point to specific aspects of this article that lapse from neutrality. But, no offense, I think anyone who wants to delete neutrally written and otherwise policy compliant material because they are concerned what conclusions our readers will draw from it is engaging in a form of editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One significant aspect of the article that violates NPOV is the paragraph from the lead that states: "American counter-terrorism analysts routinely conflated the concept of a guest house, a place for the open accommodation of visitors and travelers with that of a safe house, a place for hiding fugitives, or for hiding the travel of spies or criminals." I don't see any source for this statement, which implies either that the American counterterrorism analysts either didn't know the difference between a regular traveler guest house and a criminal/terrorist safe house, or that they did know the difference but brought allegations against detainees for staying at ordinary traveler guest houses to make it sound like those places were criminal/terrorist safe houses. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That assertion isn't sourced. That is a valid criticism. But that kind of concern is not grounds for deletion. Do American intelligence analysts know the difference between a regular traveler guest house and a criminal/terrorist safe house? I don't think this is the correct place to address that question in detail. Briefly, I read all the allegation memos, and all the transcripts. I routinely came across references to "al Qaeda safehouses" in Afghanistan prior to 9-11 -- that is at a time when the Taliban was in firm control of Afghanistan, and al Qaeda members and recruits could travel openly. And I came across references to "al Qaeda guesthouses" in Pakistan, where al Qaeda members and recruits would have to travel clandestinely. You are correct that it was a lapse on my part to use that wording, without a reference. I trust you will assume this was an inadvertent lapse. Alternatives are (1) rewrite that passage; (2) find a reference. The deletion policies do not support deletion of the whole article based on the wording of this passage. I think I can find a reference to support that wording, or something like it -- but not in the time remaining before this {{afd}} closes. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reworded the passage that concerned you. I only took a couple of minutes doing so, and it reads awkwardly. But the {{afd}} is close to closure, and I didn't want to take more time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The main point which you still have not addressed, is that this is all primary sources with no adequate sourcing for the assertions that are made. There is zero sourcing for the lead of the article, and it seems to be OR. I've already stated that this article appears to cover an important subject, but until it is written about in reliable sources we shouldn't be putting stuff together. At present this is an essay piece, and I can't see how it can be anything else, unless the independent sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I think the assertion that the article relies solely on primary sources is a very serious misconception -- one I think I addressed on September 2nd. If you are interested in seriously discussing this concern, could you please address the comments explaining why the Summary of Evidence memos should be considered secondary sources I made then? Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I explained why I thought the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos should be considered primary sources as to establishing the notability of Guantanamo detainees in [41]. Now, here, the memos are being used as our sole source of coverage not of a detainee, but of a kind of building incidentally mentioned in the memos about multiple detainees. This article relies 100% on documents issued by a single body within the U.S. government which are not even primarily about the article subject (the houses) but are mostly about some people who are alleged (among other allegations against them) to have stayed in those houses. There are no newspaper articles, no magazine articles, no books cited -- nothing but the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos, and they don't actually have a lot of content about the subject -- they just mention it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rgtrayonot and metropolitan90. There's nothing that can be added to any arguments at this point. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. WP:NOTAVOTE. I have offered civil, meaningful replies to their concerns. I think the wikipedia deserves participants in {{afd}} discussions to only offer civil, meaningful responses. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or one admin who is brave enough to enforce the policy against Original Research and put this article out of its misery. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per metropolitan90 and RGTraynor. I appreciate the time you have put into this discussion Geo Swan. The discussion is now already multiply times longer then the article and arguments have been addressed. IQinn (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources and per Met90. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 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.

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. per Nomination withdrawl JForget 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi[edit]

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

Non-Notable person that has appeared in a single youtube video. UltraMagnus (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I started this article shortly after the video appeared. I think the nomination is misleading to imply that this is not just some random youtube video. It contained the news of the merger two separate branches of Al Qaeda. The men in this video claimed to be the leaders of this newly merged al Qaeda groups. Security officials took this claim at face value. I honestly believe being one of the leaders of a branch of al Qaeda makes one notable. I honestly believe that having security officials believe one is a senior member of al Qaeda makes one notable -- even if they were mistaken. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A couple of weeks after the youtube video was uploaded Saudi security officials published a new list of suspected Saudi jihadists. This guy is ~~going to have ended up~~ on that list of 85 men. A little patience is going to be required to figure out which one. Then we should merge the two articles, or if he was one of those currently a red-link, we incorporate the info about the most wanted list into this article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the guy is also alleged to have plotted to target the US Ambassador to Yemen. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reviewed article, violates notability requirements, the suspect's actual identity is not known, and the source provided is not reliable. Would suggest author consider placing under personal space, and trying to bring in corroborating facts and sources before placing it back onto the site. Otherwise, it should be deleted.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unanswered questions about a topic are not a good argument for deletion, as I have explained in The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked... Since the article currently cites multiple references perhaps you could bring yourself to be specific about your reliability concern? Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- when this article survives this {{afd}} it should be renamed Qassem Mohammed Mahdi Al-Rimi -- which is the transliteration given here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO, uncertainty is well outlined in the article. Ray^Talk 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - In light of additional notability established--UltraMagnus (talk) 20:23, 10 September 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.

Template archive[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:TalibanBounty

{{prod}} archive[edit]

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda {{prod}}ed by User:Steve Dufour 17:25, 2007 October 14

Rename?[edit]

Any chance we could rename this sorting list to encompass the "War on Terror", rather than simply Guantanamo? By the current definition, even Bagram goings-on wouldn't fit. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

revert unexplained edit[edit]

Another contributor unilaterally redirected this deletion project to the Cuba deletion project. They were apparently laboring under some misconceptions, including that this project was "unused". Here is the discussion I had with them on their talk page.

I reverted that unilateral redirection. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this delsort list really needed?[edit]

I just saw this delsort list while scanning through the list of all of them. I am not seeing any significant reason for maintaining this particular delsort project. Its subject is extremely narrowly defined, it has experienced little activity for the last two years and, most importantly, its scope is already adequately covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism. As far as I can tell, the "Terrorism" delsort list covers every article that has ever been listed in this one. The "Terrorism" delsort list is more active, but it is not overwhelmed by traffic and there does not appear to be a compelling reason to split it into subprojects for the moment. Even if we did want to split it, the topic of "Guantanamo Bay detainment camp" is several levels below the scope of the parent "Terrorism" project. E.g. we have a delsort list for "Science", but not for indivdual disciplines like Chemistry/Physics/Astronomy, etc, and certainly not for more special topics in these disciplines such as, say having a delsort list for "Production of sulfuric acid" would be without having a "Chemistry" delsort list first. So why exactly is this delsort list necessary? Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]