Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously kept in 2007 after Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab. On reviewing, it becomes clear that there is at most one independent (i.e. not US Govt. or other party in the judicial process) source for this person which gives more than a passing mention or than a simple reprint of government documents. This document gives a few statements by Wahab as examples of experiences of Guantanamo detainees. No real information about who he is, no real attention to him presonally, is given here though. The article in the Yemen Observer is a passing mention only. Looking through Google, Google News Archives, and Google Books (with different variations of the name) didn't return other significant hits. E.g. the actual title of the article returns 45 distinct Google hits, 4 Google News hits, and 6 Google Books hits of which five are republished Wikipedia content. Fram (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article made up entirely of templates and primary documents does not meet out notability guidelines.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per nom, doesn't meet notability criterion. Bill william compton (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Strong Keep, your ignorance that "Abd al" is the same as "Abdul" and therefore there are' notable news stories about him (example, Yemen Observer), even in English - does not necessitate deleting the article. A significant miscarriage of justice case study in its own right. Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that could establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The source you give already was in the article, and is the one source I mention in my nomination. I have no idea where you get the impression that I don't know that "Abd al" can also be "Abdul", I have given no indication of this for you to base this on. Please provide policy- or guideline-based reasons for your keep, coupled with new information, not the one thing already in the article. Fram (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say there are no notable sources, he points to what he believes is a notable source, and you say, don't point to that source? If I were Papermoney, I believe I would decline that invitation. Votes mean nothing in an AfD. Arguments count. Do you propose discounting Papermoney's arguments as well? These subjects are behind a curtain of high security; primary sources are to be expected. Primary sources are counterindicated but not excluded, under PRIMARY; are you casting doubt on the accuracy of the primary sources? Anarchangel (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have the concept of "notable" sources, we have reliable independent sources. I have stated that the article has one such source, and Papermoneyis wanted a strong keep, because of that one same source, claiming that there are sources but failing to provide aby other ones. You as well don't present any other ones. WP:N requires multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Primary sources are acceptable, no one denied that, but don't count towards notability, and the kind of sources used here shouldn't be the bulk of articles. Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I misspoke. However, you objected to Papermoney presenting aspects of the article in support of its conclusion that are already in the article. This is in error; the article as it stands is in fact more relevant than propositions here. This objection, and the pursuit of all arguments in this AfD, together are heading in the direction of WP:BLUDGEON; no matter, should this happen, I have time and firmness enough to respond. I assert that N is a content ruling. See WP:DEL for a ruling on deletion. I also assert that neither of your claims: "Primary sources...don't count towards notability" and "...shouldn't be the bulk of articles" are supported by WP rules. In addition, the second assertion is vague, due to "the bulk". Anarchangel (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim that WP:N and WP:GNG are not relevant and that they are about content only, however the opposite is in fact the case. To quote WP:N "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." and "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My claim that primary sources shouldn't be the bulk of WP articles is reflected in e.g.the core policy WP:V: "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources." Specifically for the articles up at AfD, this is joined by WP:BLP: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." As for primary sources not counting towards notability: WP:BIO starts with "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." and continues a bit below, in the basic criteria, with "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Anarchangel, you may assert whatever you like, but it is better to get thoroughly acquainted with the policies and guidelines which are essential for these AfD discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what the problem is. You misunderstand this sentence: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS about a living person" (my capitalization). We can report what the Combatant Status Review Tribunal said, just as we do in its own article; making assertions about their statements are not a requirement of these articles. The only requirement in PRIMARY is that the sources are not interpreted in a POV manner (we must report what sources say, without bias). Independence of sources is only, and imo wrongly, required in GNG (Declaring sources independent or not is itself a subjective judgement. We should be reporting what sources say in an unbiased, not adding our bias by choosing which sources to report on and which not to). Independence is not a requirement in PRIMARY. And over and over it is stated that primary sources can be used; you have so far failed to see the narrow focus of what is actually excluded. Anarchangel (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, from core policy WP:V: "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources." Please indicate how this article is largely based on secondary sources? The CSTR is a primary source. Fram (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under the general notability guideline. Bulk of the references are primary documents per WP:PRIMARY. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep PRIMARY indicates using caution in interpreting primary sources. Even interpreting them is not forbidden. Reprinting them directly is not even covered by PRIMARY. Secondary sources also exist, as shown by the nomination itself and Papermoney. WP:GNG covers criteria for inclusion, not deletion; not meeting its criteria does not necessarily call for deletion. The guideline that covers those criteria is WP:DEL, and PRIMARY is mentioned nowhere in DEL. Anarchangel (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if, as you say, WP:GNG is the guideline for inclusion, surely if the subject fails its criterion it should never have been included in the first palce, and therefore should be deleted. Also how has the author "used caution" in using primary sources? The article relies on them. There may well be passing mentions in secondary sources as you claim, but that does not constitute "significant independent coverage" and hence the subject is not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not stating my argument clearly. To clarify inclusion vs deletion, and in answer to "significant independent coverage": You have asserted that GNG, and therefore "significant independent coverage" is applicable here; I assert that GNG is a content guideline, governing the body of articles and therefore not applicable as a guideline for deleting entire articles; that is why we have DEL. Re: "used caution": You have made a quote of PRIMARY out of context. Please see my note below for the full context. Anarchangel (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG clearly is relevant here. To quote the policy: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Conversly if the topic hasn't recieved such coverage it isn't, and should be deleted. Hence my argument. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Secondary sources also exist, as shown by the nomination itself and Papermoney." Again, one secondary source exists, which is included in the articlen the nomination, and Papermoneyisjustpaper's statement. No one has shown any evidence that there are secondary sourceS. Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You yourself have shown there were secondary sources, in your nomination. The article passes WP:DEL, section WP:DEL, using reliable sources, as defined in section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Primary sources are reliable. Link to No original research provided.
 * Secondary sources are also available on this subject, as Fram's own nomination shows. New ones: New York Times, Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, Justia Dockets and Filings, Associated Press, 2005, to go with the Observer one: Yemeni Observer. Anarchangel (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To me these appear to be only passing mentions, which does not constitute "significant independent coverage". As such it still does not meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The NYT is one of a list of reprints of governemnt documents on all Guantanamo detainees, not a newspaper article. The AP is a list of namese, not "significant coverage" buy any standard. Justia is a reprint of court documents. The Center for the Study of HRA is a reprint of two lines from court documents (unclassified attorney notes), reprinted from a CCR document. The CCR is the organisation that defends the Guantanamo detainees, so again not an independent source. As for your statement on primary sources; you equate "primary sources can be reliable" (which our policy says, and which no one denies) with "primary sources are reliable" which is what you say, but is a completely different thing. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY to find what is wrong with this and many other similar articles. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: while I can see that a lot of work has gone into this, it doesn't appear to me that there is enough coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. I think that it would be fair enough to make mention of the subject in an overarching parent article, but I think it is excessive to create a biography on an individual in this case. A biography should be balanced and focus on all areas of a subject's life. If the sources don't provide the information to achieve this (to a reasonable level), then in my opinion it indicates that not enough is known for an individual article to be written. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject by himself does not meet WP:GNG. Majority of references are from secondary sources relating to the event surrounding the individual. Perhaps the article can be redirected and merged to a related article, but the individual itself appears to fall under WP:BIO1E. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom, AustralianRupert and RightCowLeftCoast. Note: Papermoneyisjustpaper is almost certainly a sock puppet. IQinn (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2011 (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.