Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed


 * 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. Since there are no reliable independent sources about this person, WP:BLP applies, as does WP:NOTE. Fram 10:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fahed Nasser Mohamed

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen  23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep -- I have had some recent interactions with nominator, and have been quite frustrated by the nominators attempts to explain their interpretations of policy.
 * I have pointed that WP:VER states that the goal of the wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth".
 * I have tried my best to understand the nominator's concern that official DoD documents are not reliable sources about what the DoD has to say about a captive.
 * I am not the only one who has pointed out to the nominator that, if we followed their interpretation of blp, we would not be able to cover any allegations leveled against anyone. I dispute that blp requires protecting the subjects of articles from the mention of any allegations.  I dispute that material that is neutrally written, and cites verifiable, authoritative sources is not a violation of blp.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I checked WP:SK.  This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions.  My apologies.  Geo Swan 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But | seriously | folks   01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute that I am POV-pushing. Geo Swan 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions.   —Geo Swan 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. B figura  (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist.  Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan asked me to revisit and clarify my opinion here, and I am happy to do so. I still believe this article should be deleted as it contains little or no information about the subject, only about what has happened to him since he ended up in Guantanam Bay. To Sherurcij: there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia and each of these AFDs will be decided on its own arguments. I also would incorporate Kesh's comment below. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him, and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them.DGG (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was certainly not the intention of my argument--some of these people are quite likely dangerous criminals, and some are not. Basic experience with the world suggests that neither accusation nor defense can be implicitly believed. Looking at the article, though, the notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutral writing. DGG (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say "the case", do you mean the US Gov't case against him, or against the detainees as a group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 18:00, October 25, 2007
 * If his case really is notable enough on its own, then yes, an article on his case would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think the general case against the detainees as a group would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:15, October 25, 2007


 * Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. -- B figura  (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Apart from anything else, the article seems to have copied content and images straight out of another article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what you are talking about? If you are concerned about a copyright ivolation I assure you your concern is misplaced.  If you are concerned that there are passages in this article that also occur in other articles I question whether this is a valid justification for deletion.  The articles about the elements in hte periodic table will have common elements too, because those articles, while unique, share aspects in common.  Geo Swan 12:26, 27 October 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.