Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif


 * 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. Rough consensus is that the current sourcing in the article is enough to adequately establish notability. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable, no independent coverage, article is a summarization of primary court records, appears to individually fail Notability (criminal acts) and WP:BIO, imo the Guantanamo issue is notable but this does not inherit notability on to the minor players in the story. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete: as per above reasoning. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable third-party sources, no article. That is what our notability guidelines say, for good reasons. Pantherskin (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * keep based on good sources, involved in major world events of permanent historical importance. I thought we had settled a good while ago that every Gitmo detainee where here was something to say other than the mere fact of his being there was worth an article.  DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm inclined to agree with DGG that this man is notable in the sense of being "worthy of note". I'm comfortable with the sourcing; the primary/secondary source distinction is not easy in cases like this but I consider that many of the source are actually secondary sources in respect of the factual matters they support. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- No offense, but this reference to this wikidocument implies a serious misconception -- it cites Notability (criminal acts), as if Fahd al Sharif were merely a criminal suspects. The reason why we don't have millions of articles on ordinary criminal suspects and ordinary convicted felons is that we have very well understood criminal justice systesm, and almost every suspect and felon follows a well understood pattern.  Their progress through the system is routine, mundane, unremarkable, unextraordinary, except in the rare cases that deviates from the pattern in a significant manner, that individual might rise to notability.  When DNA evidence shows a convicted felon was innocent after all that might make them notable.  When they are beaten, like Rodney King, or escape, or are released early, like Willie Horton they might rise to notability.
 * Notability (criminal acts) is not applicable, Fahd al Sharif was not a criminal suspect. He was held for over five years without ever facing charges.  This is extremely unusual.
 * Aren't POWs routinely held sithout charge? Yes, last century millions of POWs were held, without charge, until the wars they were captured in ended.  But Fahd al Sharif, like the other Guantanamo captives was stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions in a highly controversial manner.
 * So, Fahd al Sharif was held, for five years, without charge, and without the authorization of the Geneva Conventions to hold combatants without charge, why is that a big deal? Haven't a hundred million individuals simply been secretly locked up, and disappeared in secret prisons in living memory?  Yes, if you include the Soviet Gulag, Nazi Germany's concentration camps, and the Gulag like camps in other nations there may have been 100 millions individuals locked up in secret camps.  Of those 100 million 99,999.221 were held by totalitarian dictatorships, who made no effort to honor the rule of law.  But the USA does honor the rule of law.
 * The nomination characterizes the references as "primary court records". The Summary of Evidence memos drafted by OARDEC were not court records.  The Tribunals were not courts of law.  Nor were they "primary references".  The summaries memos fulfill all the criteria to be recognized as secondary sources. They are independent from those who originally gathered the information they contain, and from the subject of they contain. The authors of the memos were charged with the responsibility to intelligently understand, collate, analyze, determine the credibility, and resolve ambiguity and contradiction of reports from half a dozen separate civilian and military agencies.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This man is individually not notable at all. All of this is coatracking the bigger picture on to him. A list woud be plenty, there are I am sure a couple of independently notable Guantanamo detainees, where there has been some individual independent coverage of their cases but the vast majority of them are not notable, the event, people locked up without trial, ok that is notable but the individuals such as this one are not. So criminal acts is not applicable, what part of the guidelines is being used to assert notability on this individual? The individual is not worthy of note as one editor suggests, it is the event that is worthy of note. If is has been as DGG suggests, previously discussed and support was that being a Guantanamo detainee is notable in itself could I have a link to the previous discussion. This would be enough for this person, in a list.. Fahd al Sharif was held in Quantanamo, for five years, without charge, and without the authorization of the Geneva Conventions. I am sure at least that could be cited to an independent reliable source. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, article is well-referenced and subject is notable. The fact there are no English language media reports on him is not surprising (although I believe Andy Worthington wrote about him) since he's in Saudi Arabia. I had similar issues trying to write an article about the Beauharnois scandal from a century ago...all the good references are in French, not English...hell, just compare the "best article possible from the English sources" with the article on the French wikipedia (where I believe it may even be Featured status). In time, we may come across a fluent Arabic editor who will point us to the newspaper announcements when he was repatriated, but there is no need to "do so within the next week or the article is deleted", there is no shortage of wonderful articles on Wikipedia that use court documents as their primary source. Take a look at Patrick J. Whelan for example, most media outlets published nothing other than "he was hanged for the murder of a politician", but through using the (online) court transcript, suddenly his life is fleshed out and the article is 1000% longer and more helpful. I see nothing to indicate al-Sharif is anything different. People, in bad faith, try and twist "helpful guidelines" into being loopholes through which they can delete articles they find personally offensive. Try watchlisting Pearl necklace or something similar, if you want evidence of that. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of the notability guidelines are you asserting applies to this person? None of the articles that you have linked to are similar in any way? Who are you talking about in your comments about "People, in bad faith, try and twist "helpful guidelines" into being loopholes through which they can delete articles they find personally offensive" ?Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines which part of notability does this individual attain?Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of references confirming the information there. Lot of valid information to fill the article with.  This person is of importance to the historical records.  If someone who spoke his native language could search for news mention of him, they'd probably turn up more.   D r e a m Focus  00:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of the notability policy is he is important to the historical record ? none at all, I would just like someone to point me to the part of policy that asserts this person is notable, I don't think that there could well by lots of citations in his own language really cuts it, no one as yet here has shown me a good reason within policy that supports the assertion that this person is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful not to conflate "policy" with "guidelines". There is no policy on notability, only guidelines that create "presumptions" of notability. Those guidelines are not exhaustive.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, he doesn't actually show any notability but those guidelines are not exhaustive? You say in your keep comment, "this man is notable in the sense of being "worthy of note". So that is opinion and not really guidelines or policy? Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:N (only a guideline) defines notability to be "worthy of note". So that test is called for by the guidelines. Notability will often involve value judgements; the WP:GNG is not a set rule that has to be robotically applied in every AfD: it explicitly says it’s a guideline, and it explicitly says that it only gives rise to a presumption of notability. Now I think the WP:GNG is important and call for its application in the very large majority of AfDs. But in this case, I happen to think the subject is notable for the reasons of his incarceration and the information about his biography is verified. So even if he doesn't meet the WP:GNG (which as I've said above he probably still does), I still consider him notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of coverage in secondary sources indicate lack of notability. To the extent there is any notability, it's only for one event.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep There does seem to be a fair amount of sources, but I would like to see more.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, a BLP built from primary sources.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, and some other relevant and cogent arguments, including User:Mkativerata's. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 1 May 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.