Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84). D Big X ray  21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. Besides the cases of these subjects are already mentioned in Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs   was Delete   D Big X ray   21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, subjects appear to fail WP:BIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - pretty much fails WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - WP:BLP1E, being arrested and held in Gitmo is not a noteworthy enough of a single event to surpass 1E even where there is scant reliable Source coverage, and even that doesn't exist for these people. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - all these articles fail WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per nom. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Also there is nothing WP:N about them.  →TSU tp* 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all Reject delete arguments as throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, outdated use of PRIMARY followed by a five-member decision on a wiki-wide issue, disingenous invocation of privacy rights, uninformed voting, etc etc. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Abdelli Faghoul noted in particular. There are ten non-Primary sources in that article, even as it stands, without having to check Books and News. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions in reliable sources do not add up to notability. And even if they did, none of these people can overcome WP:BLP1E; they are only discussed slightly because they spent time in Gitmo, nothing more.  Whatever way you try to spin the WP:ARS magic, it hits a complete dead-end on these subjects. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (all).   The coverage is substantial, and independent of the subject. Or is it alleged that he wrote the report of the US commissions or arranged for or approved their publication?   And at the very least, it can be merged into a combination article, so deletion is not appropriate. The view that is is significant is the political judgment that those imprisoned there are so unimportant   that what is written about them is unimportant, and that is the sort of political bias that is inappropriate in Wikipedia. I recognize those voting to delete may not be aware of the conscious bias, but that does not mean it is not present.  Our rejection of these articles would amount to  a drastic violation of NPOV, just as previous deletions have been. It is time to correct our course, and then reverse the earlier deletions.     DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All the useful information is included at a combination article Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay-- D Big X ray   08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. I'd say the keepers are confusing notability of GITMO detention itself, and the surrounding criticism, with notability of individual detainees.  One does not confer notability on the other, a form of WP:NOTINHERITED. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I accept, at face value, that nominator is acting in good faith, and honestly thinks they have complied with our policies, including WP:BEFORE, which he or she explicitly claimed above. Nevertheless, it is impossible to make a meaninful attempt to address concerns in raised in Afd when a half dozen new Afd are filed per day.
 * I spent hours working on Ahmed Belbacha article. I really only scratched the surface.
 * Nominator is on record that ``none of these articles should ever have been created`` -- when a considerable fraction of the Guantanamo articles they are nominating already survived an earlier Afd.
 * I am the contributor who started this articles, and most of the other articles on Guantanamo captives. Let me state, for the record, I acknowledge, and agree, that it doesn`t matter if articles measured up to the standards current at the time they were written, and it doesn`t matter if they measured up to the standards current when the survived earlier Afd, if they can`t be made to measure up to the standards current today.  I believe that all the articles in this list can be made to measure up to standards current today -- but they can`t be brought up to those standards in a week, when the same nominator initiated a half dozen new nominations per day.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment at creator Geo Swan: When I said "none of these articles should ever have been created" I was clearly referring to the  BLPs for the non notable subjects such as these. Many of the guantanamo prisoners were notable and had WP:SIGCOV does not mean that any prisoner will be notable. Also you cannot say that you were not given enough time to eshtablish notability as the article was created on 30 May 2006‎. And after more than a year of the RFC/U pointed by other editors on Articles_for_deletion/Said_Muhammad_Husayn_Qahtani-- D Big X ray   21:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all - keep arguments are based on inherited notability, "it must be notable", and spurious WP:CSB arguments. There is no notability for these people outside of their detention; a mention at Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay is the only needed content. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment - Er, Crisco, we're at 7-3 (8 if nom is tallied) in favor of deletion. Unless one is suggesting critical flaws with the deletion rationales, how is this not a clear consensus. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial reading was that the new sources had not been discussed in depth, but a second  read-through belies that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2012 (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.