Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

On a Guantanamo prisoner with no coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. May fail WP:BLP1E as well if we consider release from Guantanamo as a single notable event. There is already a list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay giving the same info.  D Big X ray  08:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After AfD nomination the article has been filled by the creator with content and primary sources related to the case proceedings of the subject (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84 ), The article so far does not even have a single secondary source to establish notability and does not deserve a separate article.-- D Big X ray  17:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, subject does not appear to be independently notable as an individual. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BLP1E, and much of the article appears to actually be largely a WP:COATRACK attack on the broader 'judicial' process which applied to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay (I actually agree with the criticisms of this process, but this sure isn't the way to cover them). Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:COATRACK essay advances some interesting ideas. The odd thing about the essay is how often it is cited in afd in ways inconsistent with the advice in the essay.  If you are interested in discussing how and where we cover the administrative process whereby the Guantanamo captive had their statuses reviewed, possibly triggering a recommendation they be cleared for release, by all means lets discuss that.  An afd is not the appropriate place to discuss this issue.  Please note COATRACK does not recommend deletion as the first solution for perceived instance of COATRACK concerns.  Rather COATRACK recommends deletion should be a very last resort when talk page discussion and our other means for contributors to raise concerns have failed.  You called the review process a  judicial process.  I corrected you, and described it as an administrative process.  Captives routinely asked the officers on the Review boards why they were not allowed to consult a lawyer.  They always got the same answer -- that the review boards were not judicial, that they were merely  “administrative”.  I know you have read many of these article.  That you have misunderstood this key point seems to me to be a strong argument for changing how that aspect of the reviews is covered.  Can we please discuss this general question elsewhere?  Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I am sure there are good faith reasons why this nomination contains inaccuracies. The most important inaccuracy is that “The article so far does not even have a single secondary source to establish notability and does not deserve a separate article.”  After his release at least two interviews with al Bidna were published.  Al Riyadh seems to have been in an important Saudi magazine.  Excerpts from these interviews have been translated into English, and re-published.  I cited those sources.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment at creator Geo Swan. Following WP:V Please produce the secondary sources that claim his notability, the links you have added are dead links with none linking to Al Riyadh and your claims above are unverified.-- D Big X ray  13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These references were in the Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna section. Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the links Geo, sadly both of them are unable to establish Notability here
 * Primary source on Guantanamo Prisoners with its routine articles, does not establish Notability.
 * Dead link (unverified) .-- D Big X ray  15:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Worthington is a historian and journalist. If he were Guantanamo captive, reporting on what he personally experienced, or if he was a US official, reporting on his or her own activities, I would agree he would be a primary source.  He is however an independent observer who read and analyzed material others wrote about Guantanamo.  He is highly respected and widely quoted.  I would think all experienced contributors would recognize this makes him both an RS and a secondary source.  The AIF link has gone 404 in the days since I first used it.  I will look for an alternate URL.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * URLs to google translate expire after 72 hours...
 * Worthington is a historian and journalist. If he were Guantanamo captive, reporting on what he personally experienced, or if he was a US official, reporting on his or her own activities, I would agree he would be a primary source.  He is however an independent observer who read and analyzed material others wrote about Guantanamo.  He is highly respected and widely quoted.  I would think all experienced contributors would recognize this makes him both an RS and a secondary source.  The AIF link has gone 404 in the days since I first used it.  I will look for an alternate URL.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * URLs to google translate expire after 72 hours...
 * URLs to google translate expire after 72 hours...
 * URLs to google translate expire after 72 hours...
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article subject does not meet WP:BIO, specifically notability. WP:PRIMARY sources (including interviews) do not support notability, and the only third-party sources are trivial passing coverage. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the notability guidelines. I can find much secondary source having an in-depth coverage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Nothing else has been done by the person to make him notable.  →TSU tp* 14:37, 30 June 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.