Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab


 * 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)

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

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)
 * 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)
 * Delete per nom and Lawrence Cohen, and the reasons I have expressed at Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Gulam_Rasoul. -- But | seriously | folks   20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions.   —Geo Swan 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Deleteper above well founded arguments. Also, I think W is not a soapbox.  Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim   19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep after close examination, I do not feel that this one article is a WP:COATRACK article (although close to it).  Bur nt sau ce  18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


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