Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Raza


 * 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. L Faraone  03:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Abid Raza

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Biography that fails WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. IQinn (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC) IQinn
 * Keep -- Dog bites man is unremarkable, as dog-bites are fairly routine events. Man bites dog is remarkable. During the 20th and 21st Centuries millions of individuals have been locked up, without charge and held incommunicado in secret detention. Possibly 100 million individuals were held without charge in secret detention.  We don't have articles out most of those individual because sadly, seizing individuals, and holding them in secret without laying charges, without access to the legal avenues they might use to try to free themselves has been a common practice -- for totalitarian regimes that don't honor the rule of law. Almost all of the 99,999,000 of the individuals held without charge are as unremarkable as the dog who bites a man.  The other 1000 or so are the Guantanamo captives, who represent a very rare phenomenon -- individuals seized and held in secret by a democratic country that, normally, honors the rule of law.  So, when we have enough information to flesh out an article on one of them I believe we should do so.  I believe the WP:BLPPRIMARY concern expressed above is a red herring.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess that could be one of the most poetic !votes done at Afd done by the editor who has created all these articles and i wonder what has driven him to such a reply. Please understand we have policies and requirement what should be included into Wikipedia. While your poetic explanation was fun to read it does not show that the article fulfills WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. It does not and you are welcome to provide policy based arguments and evidence concerning these policies. Thank you IQinn (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A person does not gain notability for being held in "secret detention". Indeed,the creator's own allegation as to notability displays that his contention of notability is based on the fact this individual is alleged to be part of a lerger whole.  As IQuinn states, the article itself violates WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY.  The sources are not reliable secondary sources, and the individual has not been the subject of significant coverage by news organizations.  My suggestion would be to save this artyicle on the creator's own computer, find some sources, and re-add it at a later date if reliable, secondary sources can be found.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been some not unreasonable objection to articles containing no other source but the DoD summaries, but there are two other sources for him totally independent of that, so the argument about only primary sources is in this case simply false.  That another ed. endorses the false statement is only explainable as an honest comment, if they have read only the nomination and not the article.  But what is really breath-taking is that the nominator has removed most of the content from the secondary sources from the article after nominating it--and the material removed shows the secondary sources actually covered him in detail!    DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The "really breath-taking" is that almost all editors (many) who have put forward Guantanamo related articles for discussion over the years were accused of bad faith or met with uncivil comments by a small group of people. I would also like to note that you recently admitted some kind of involvement in helping out Geo in the past. I think we agree on the following. Primary sources do not count towards notability WP:BLPPRIMARY. That leaves us with only two sources. 1) The Nation This source as far as i remember just list his name as one of 17 who have been released from Guantanamo. 2) Daily Times That does not provide more information on the subject than already included. These two sources are not enough to establish notability WP:GNG, they do not provide enough information on the subject and these sources are not enough to write an BLP under our strict rules for BLP's. Almost all information now are based on the interpretation of primary sources in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. In conclusion it fails basic requirements for BLP's like WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, I help him, but in many cases that help has been to advise him to withdraw quite a number of the challenged articles. I frequently have occasion to say it to those I support generally, as they are more likely to follow such advice when it comes from a supporter.  There is nobody here whom I defend unconditionally, because nobody is perfect. I don't think there is any regular contributor here I oppose unconditionally either.  I am indeed sufficiently involved that you see me at the GITMO articles only making comments, not closing, or otherwise using admin powers. I've never used admin powers with respect to someone I'm involved with positively or negatively;  to avoid doubt,  I rarely use such powers at all except to delete unsatisfactory articles from new contributors.  That's me; as for these discussions, only a very small group of people have consistently opposed the GITMO articles-and a small number defended them--there were more in the beginning, but I suppose they became tired by the repetitiveness, as usually happens here. It's quite normal that only a few people here   care sufficiently about a narrow subject enough to be persistent in either direction,  & is not your fault or mine.  As for the article,  I see you do not deny that it is not true that  there are only primary sources. As for the primary source, of course official government sources contribute to notability. The previous debates have been whether inclusion of them alone is enough to show notability, and I think the conclusions was it depends upon the authoritative nature of the source and what it says.  I agree many AfD discussions where the DoD document has been the only source have been held  to not provide sufficient evidence for notability. As for what is included in the second source,, anyone who wants to check what is said can read the actual source, . And anyone can check what you  deleted  at  edit    -- 3 paragraphs about the man.  They don't have to judge by our argument, nor should they.  DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT: "As for the primary source, of course official government sources contribute to notability." That's incorrect WP:BASIC: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
 * WRT: "The previous debates have been whether inclusion of them alone is enough to show notability" I have never doubt that there are only primary sources. There are two secondary sources but they do not satisfy WP:GNG.
 * WRT: "They don't have to judge by our argument, nor should they." All information concerning the subject of this BLP from that source has been included in the article. This article together with the other secondary source that simply mention his name does not provide enough information about the subject to establish notability WP:GNG, they do not provide enough information on the subject and these sources are not enough to write an BLP under our rules for BLP's and WP:GNG. Almost all information in the article now are based on the interpretation of primary sources in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. IQinn (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2010 (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.