Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Mahmood (detainee)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tariq Mahmood (detainee)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

contested prod, for a non-notale person. Artcile lists 3 sources, two of which failed verification. The soruce for these two sources is the third source, which is a one-line mention of the subject's name in a long list or other people JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – I had a look outside the 'pediabox. I found verification easy enough (the one remaining is very frequently cited, but I haven't verified personally), and news coverage in multiple reliable sources here is more than trivial. I added it to the article. As it happens, subscription legal sites also seem to have court records indicating this subject may be held in connection with another detainee who's also apparently notable. Again, I haven't verified it personally, and they may even have BLP implications, so I won't go so far as to add that much. If someone has those subscriptions, I hope they'll add info and cites. At any rate, I anticipate this BLP, which already passes WP:BASIC reqs, will grow with time. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As one of the few British detainees in Guantanamo, he is one of the better known of them in the UK (I'd certainly heard of him and Moazzam Begg). The article is now very adequately sourced (though lack of citations isn't a reason to nominate for deletion) and augmented too. Sionk (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

*Strong Keep The article is now well sourced, and after trying to do some research of my own, I can tell you that there are many Tariq Mahmoods in the world. With a person that clearly meets notability standards, it is vital that Wikipedia have an article on someone that is so difficult to research any other way. I have removed the only questionable BLP statement I saw, which was that he was alleged to have ties to al-Qaeda. Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW the allegation appears here: . Overall I'd say it's a pretty reliable source that the allegation exists, but it doesn't extrapolate on the accusers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Highly problematic to start an BLP based on that. More below. Jrwikieditor (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like confirmation that that the two contributors above are talking about the same allegations. Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be the case. What's your point? Jrwikieditor (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * JFHJr seems to be talking about the allegations that Tariq had been tortured. You seem to have assumed JFHJr was talking about the allegations offered to justify his detention.  That is my point.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Red herring? little to no question about what we are talkin., he mentioned that also in his comment "alleged to have ties to al-Qaeda." and the source (pdf) he posted says: "Alleged to have ties to al-Qaida" concerning Tariq Mahmood. Well just ask him if you still have doubts. Jrwikieditor (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or rewrite - better merge into the UK torture case article - Hey guys i do not doubt your good faith but this article just "sucks". It is a complete distortion of the story and almost certain a BLP violation in this form. The article now circles around speculations and rumors pasted together from outdated press reports. It is a Red herring.


 * Hey! the ISI dumped him after 5 month and there are a lot of sources that speak about his unusual interrogations and treatment by various parties during his detention. Nothing to be found in the article. No no, don't be mistaken - he is not in Guantanamo :))


 * The real story and references have been left out:


 * Memorandum submitted by Ian Cobain, The Guardian
 * MI5 accused of 'outsourcing torture' of British citizens to Pakistani security agencies
 * Fabricating Terrorism II - British complicity in renditions and torture
 * The truth about torture
 * MPs urge probe into torture claim British complicity in renditions and torture
 * Binyam Mohamed’s Coming Home From Guantánamo, As Torture Allegations Mount
 * MI5 officers 'outsourced the torture of British nationals to Pakistani agencies'
 * The men committee could have asked about MI5 and torture
 * MPs demand inquiry into torture of Briton overseas


 * As i said i do not doubt the good faith of the editors who wrote this biography but this is a biography of a living person and as i said it should be deleted/blanked or completely rewritten. Though i personally think it would be better to merge it into the UK torture investigation / compensation article. Jrwikieditor (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -- "delete or rewrite" is not one of the opinions participants are expected to offer in afd. "Rewrite" would be a keep.  Please only state one of the usual opinions here.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you are mistaken and i am surprised you do not know that. These are options here and you surprise me because apart from the raised WP:COMPETENT issues about your ability in writing WP:BLP and WP:NPOV compliant biographies there seems to be also a lack of understanding of core policies. Jrwikieditor (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Jrwikieditor blocked as a sockpuppet of Iquinn.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a little bit of a case of WP:1E.  The fact that he is "connected with" other more notable detainees does not make him notable in his own right.  Possibly either merge or redirect, but I'd delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with arguments based on WP:BLP1E is that "one event" is not defined. Tariq:
 * was captured by the ISI;
 * held in extrajudicial detention;
 * was not given normal consular access;
 * claims MI5 officials played a role in his torture during his interrogations;
 * has chosen to live in exile in Dubai because he does not feel safe in the UK after UK officials played a role in his torture.
 * Whether these are interpreted as "one event", or multiple events, is a subjective decision. Personally, I am inclined to think any individual who has made credible claims of torture, who is the subject of coverage of WP:RS merits individual here.  Question, should we assume from your conflation of the events listed above into a single event that your position is that torture during interrogation should be considered normal, mundane, routine, not worth coverage?  Geo Swan (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He as a person is not notable. The alleged torture and mistreatment is. Jrwikieditor (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect After reading the discussion put forward by Jrwikieditor and Legis (thanks for pointing me to WP:1E!), I think it should be merged with the 'event' article, as per WP:1E and a redirect left in place.
 * And which article are you suggesting this article be merged with? Geo Swan (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- for reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - very good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per simple reasoning of User:Sionk. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient press coverage. I continue to hold, as I held from the start, that every individual one of the Gitmo prisoners==guilty of anything real, or not--will prove notable as enough time goes by for sources, and enough time for them to attain a legend as martyrs. He has already accomplished both of those.  DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 18 December 2011 (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.