Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norullah Noori


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Norullah Noori

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nom after questioning of 2010's bulk nomination at Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849). Courcelles 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As I pointed out in the original afd WP:POLITICIAN says individuals who have held senior government posts -- like Governor -- are considered notable. I offered links to substantiate that Noorullah Noori had been the Taliban's Governor of Balkh province.  Noori was listed as number 90 on the United Nations' 1267 list of sanctioned individuals.  The list transliterates his name as "Nurullah Nuri", and asserts that not only was he Governor of Balkh, but he was also the administrator of the Northern Region.  If I understood the closing administrator's post-facto justification for this deletion he or she could not accept considering the United Nations a reliable source for the positions of government officials like Noori.
 * FWIW there are plenty of other references that confirm Noori has been described as a former Governor.
 * FWIW he has been described as directing Taliban fighters in his Province to surrender peacefully.
 * FWIW after he surrendered General Rashid Dostum took him along to the ruins of Qalia Jangi prison, where hundreds of the men he ordered to surrender were killed in what is usually described as a "prison uprising".
 * FWIW in his memoirs Abdul Salam Zaeff, the Taliban's former ambassador to Pakistan, describes being held with Noori in a secret prison on board the USS Bataan.
 * FWIW the Taliban recently entered into direct negotiations with the USA -- negoations that did not include the Karzai regime. One of the items under discussion is release, to political asylum in Qatar, of the half dozen remaining senior Taliban leaders still held in Guantanamo.  Iranian press reports state that Noori and two other former governors have already been transferred to asylum in Qatar.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO. None of the published sources appear to give more than passing coverage to this person, and the rest of the sources are routine military reports and court documents so notability isn't established. WP:POLITICAN doesn't actually say that people who have held a senior office are automatically notable as claimed above - it says that such people are "likely to be notable". This appears to be one of the exceptions, which is hardly surprising given that the Taliban government of Afghanistan were secretive and rarely covered in any kind of media. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I request Nick-D try to explain why he considers Noori as an exceptional former governor whose governorship did not make him notable. Ideally every biographical article on the wikipedia would cover the individual's educational background, whether they were married, had children, covered their career, prior to whatever made them notable.  But I contend that such details, while desirable, should not be considered required for an individual to be notable.  I've written elsewhere (here and here) about the perfect counter-example "false Geber",  an individual whose real name, education, religion, ethnic background, birth date, death date are all a matter of speculation.  As I have written elsewhere Isaac Asimov considered false Geber notable enough that he had an entry for him in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science -- even though absolutely nothing was known of the mundane details of his life.  Asimov considered false Geber's publication of the accounts of how to purify and use Sulfuric acid as a key development that justified including him in his encyclopedia.  We don't know where Noori went to school.  We do know he went to school -- remarkable in and of itself, when most Taliban leaders are illiterate.  But why, in the name of heck, would that preclude considering him notable, when he has been named in United Nation's resolutions, is the prime subject of negotiations, choose to surrender rather than fight, when the USA invaded Afghanistan?  Normally mundane details, like education, family status, only very rarely establish notability.  I regard it as extremely unfortunate when contributors assert, without real explanation, that articles that lack this information are not notable.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As you well know, notability of individuals is established by the availability of references to reliable published sources that provide in-depth coverage of the person. The available references do not provide such coverage in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, as I think you would know, if you took the time to make even a brief search, there are plenty of reliable published sources that cover Noori. What is "in depth" is subjective.  It is important for us to do our best to be aware of our own biases, so we don't succumb to allowing our subjective POV to taint what we recognize as "notable", "significant", or "in depth".  I've listed some of the things we know about Noori.  You haven't tried to explain why you don't recognize this as "in depth" coverage.  Nor have you made any meaningful attempt to explain what further information you would recognize as sufficient.  So, I repeat that, in my opinion, the closing administrator should discount your unexplained vote.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - IMO the subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is there not-notable under the WP:GNG (note - I was the nominator at the previous AFD). Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the previous afd respondent above used hundreds of words defending their good faith,, , and made zero efforts to address the counter-arguments to his or her nomination for deletion. However no one in that discussion challenged their good faith.  I am not challenging their good faith here.  I am, however, extremely disappointed in the lack of effort shown to understand and offer a meaningful response to contributors who don't agree with them.  Here on the wikipedia we all have an obligation to engage in collegial discussion, we all have an obligation to make a sincere attempt to understand the positions of those who disagree with us.  Afd is WP:NOTAVOTE.  Respondent above asserts the subject "lacks 'significant coverage'".  Over the last month the subject of this article has had dozens of articles cover the negotiations to secure release for him, and political asylum in Qatar.  I am afraid this assertion was made without spending 20 seconds on a google search, or without spending 20 seconds looking at the references recently introduced into the article.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- My understanding of the role of the closing administrator in an afd includes discounting responses that are counter-policy, are based on misunderstandings, and various other reasons. Both respondents who left "delete" votes here, left "delete" votes in the original afd.  In my opinion, both then, and now, they left votes, without making an effort to understand the keep arguments.  For this reason I think both these opinions should be discounted.  I've relisted this afd.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This really shouldn't have been relisted by someone who has commented on the debate. It seems a rather WP:POINTy thing to do... Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked WP:RELIST prior to relisting, as this is the first time I relisted an afd. My apologies if the proscription Nick-D asserts exists, actually exists.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources easily passes GNC. Francis Bond (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have been a senior enough member of the Taliban (which, like it or not, was the government of Afghanistan for a time) for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep RS for being  Governor of Balkh Province. That's notability regardless of anything else. Furthermore, there are enough refs for meeting the GNG.  Given these factors, any attempt to delete the article would appear blatantly disruptive. The relisting was at most a harmless error--the deletion attempt was not, though I refrain from commenting on motive. Geo may not choose to challenge the good faith of the re-nom. I accept his charitable decision, but I would have done otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not cast aspersions on my motives,DGG. This was deleted at AFD last year with a consensus that the GNG did not make this fellow notable.  We're here because it was a better venue than forcing Geo Sawn to go through DRV to challenge that close when that venue would likely remand it here. Courcelles 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To the extent this is a technical renomination, listing it is in good faith. To the extent that someone will argue that the governorship does not show notability, such is not a good faith argument, whether in any prior discussion nor in this one.  DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Courcelles, you assert that there was a consensus to delete. No offense, but I suggest you have unintentionally misrepresented that afd.  A consensus is arrived at following a discussion.  A discussion requires an exchange of views.  Contributors who ignore counter-arguments have not engaged in an exchange of views.  I think I offered strong counter-arguments, which those voicing delete ignored.  Sorry, but I dispute characterizing their opinions as a "consensus".  Geo Swan (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets our notability guidelines, as indicated by a number of editors above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epeefleche. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 25 January 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.