Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hozaifa Parhat


 * 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   merge to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Seems pretty clear that this is a textbook BLP1E situation. No one is saying that Wikipedia should not contain any information on Parhat, just that he doesn't need his own standalone article. -Scottywong | spout _ 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hozaifa Parhat

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

On a living prisoner from Guantanamo  Fails WP:BLP1E,  WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84)   D Big X ray   15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep -- This nomination is highly misleading. Parhat had an unique ruling made by DC court of appeals made in his DTA appeal, on 2008-06-20.  Many reliable sources have commented on what that ruling said about him.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But are these anything more than passing mentions? I don't see extensive coverage - just that he is mentioined in passing... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. That subject is very notable and article-worthy, and the articles on the detainees themselves can be merged and redirected into it, as individually they do not meet the bar for notability to have individual articles that would, by necessity, essentially duplicate the information in the article about the group, as they have done nothing else notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. From what Geo Swan has highlighted, it seems that the issue he wishes to highlight is what the ruling meant for the legality of the arrangements prisoners were being held under. This should be covered in the appropriate article on these arrangements, rather than an article on an otherwise non-notable person. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient coverage to be notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R and WP:R.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In news and book searches found multiple passing mentions of the subject but none that would be considered significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER. That being said the subject falls under a notable group, a redirect can be left in the articlespace and its verified content can be merged within that target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what elements of "significant coverage" do you think are missing? Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. That subject is very notable and article-worthy, and the articles on the detainees themselves can be merged and redirected into it, as individually they do not meet the bar for notability to have individual articles that would, by necessity, essentially duplicate the information in the article about the group, as they have done nothing else notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. From what Geo Swan has highlighted, it seems that the issue he wishes to highlight is what the ruling meant for the legality of the arrangements prisoners were being held under. This should be covered in the appropriate article on these arrangements, rather than an article on an otherwise non-notable person. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient coverage to be notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R and WP:R.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In news and book searches found multiple passing mentions of the subject but none that would be considered significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER. That being said the subject falls under a notable group, a redirect can be left in the articlespace and its verified content can be merged within that target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what elements of "significant coverage" do you think are missing? Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator -- afd is not a vote, as I understand it, you have the authority to discount arguments that are inaccurate, or are counter-policy. Hofaiza Parhat is one of the most significant Guantanamo captives due to the significant ruling in his DTA appeal.  Nominator claimed there were no secondary sources that supported his notability.  Wrong.  Several books and and scholarly articles devoted page after page to the ruling.  In doing so they provided plenty of biographical details about the man himself.  Two of the contributors above assert that the references to Parhat are only "passing mentions".  That is true for some but by no means all of these references.  However, even if, for the sake of argument, all the references for some topic each only touched on that topic in a single paragraph, but each of those single paragraphs covered a different aspect of the topic, added together they would add up to the coverage in depth we expect in an article.  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS essay warns that instances occur when a small subsection of the project's community chime in, and give the appearance of a consensus, that would not be endorsed by the wider community.  I suggest the apparent consensus here is an instance of that phenomenon.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 22 August 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.
 * Note to closing administrator -- afd is not a vote, as I understand it, you have the authority to discount arguments that are inaccurate, or are counter-policy. Hofaiza Parhat is one of the most significant Guantanamo captives due to the significant ruling in his DTA appeal.  Nominator claimed there were no secondary sources that supported his notability.  Wrong.  Several books and and scholarly articles devoted page after page to the ruling.  In doing so they provided plenty of biographical details about the man himself.  Two of the contributors above assert that the references to Parhat are only "passing mentions".  That is true for some but by no means all of these references.  However, even if, for the sake of argument, all the references for some topic each only touched on that topic in a single paragraph, but each of those single paragraphs covered a different aspect of the topic, added together they would add up to the coverage in depth we expect in an article.  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS essay warns that instances occur when a small subsection of the project's community chime in, and give the appearance of a consensus, that would not be endorsed by the wider community.  I suggest the apparent consensus here is an instance of that phenomenon.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 22 August 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.
 * Note to closing administrator -- afd is not a vote, as I understand it, you have the authority to discount arguments that are inaccurate, or are counter-policy. Hofaiza Parhat is one of the most significant Guantanamo captives due to the significant ruling in his DTA appeal.  Nominator claimed there were no secondary sources that supported his notability.  Wrong.  Several books and and scholarly articles devoted page after page to the ruling.  In doing so they provided plenty of biographical details about the man himself.  Two of the contributors above assert that the references to Parhat are only "passing mentions".  That is true for some but by no means all of these references.  However, even if, for the sake of argument, all the references for some topic each only touched on that topic in a single paragraph, but each of those single paragraphs covered a different aspect of the topic, added together they would add up to the coverage in depth we expect in an article.  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS essay warns that instances occur when a small subsection of the project's community chime in, and give the appearance of a consensus, that would not be endorsed by the wider community.  I suggest the apparent consensus here is an instance of that phenomenon.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 22 August 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.
 * 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.