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 [1] (page 10) and [2] (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 [3] - 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 [4] - 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.