Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo


 * 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. Clearly a synthesis of ideas not directly verified by sources. Could it be true? Sure, but as we all know that is not enough, it must be verified. I would add that the amount of personal animosity in this afd is not acceptable. Limit discussion to the relative merits of the article and not your opinions of one another. If you want to go headhunting, initiate a request for comment on user conduct, but keep it out of content debates. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOTCRYSTAL WP:OR based on primary sources in violation of WP:SYN. No WP:RS that confirm or even mention that there is an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". IQinn (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename You claim the article has no sources, but it is sourced to . This is a real person; the article should be renamed to whatever his name is. Shii (tock) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion suggestion seems to be purely a Loki's Wager argument. Just because a government hasn't revealed the exact birth name of someone in their custody doesn't make them non-notable for being a captive of that government. Throwing quotes around the words "head" or "neck" or even "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" does not a logical argument make, IQuinn. -- Kendrick7talk 05:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is not much logic in your comment "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" is the quoted title nothing more or less. Do you have any secondary source that mention that there is an unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo? Is there any secondary sources that took notice of this and has reported about this. The primary document from Guantanamo needs to be evaluated in the light of other documents and information about Guantanamo captives. That is done by secondary sources. Despite intense searching i could not find any secondary source that took notice of an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". No sources that mention this idea. Sure it sounds interesting to have an article about an Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo but if it would be interesting or notable than we would find at least a few secondary sources that would mention an unknown Tajiki in Guantanamo. IQinn (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary sourcing is not required to do basic things like mathematics. For example, 2+2=4 does not require sourcing. Therefore, 12-11=1 doesn't either. But as we obviously do not have an article about every Tajik prisoner held captive by the U.S., I could be easily persuaded to merge this into the general article about Tajik captives held in Guantanamo -- but the correct forum for merge discussions in on article talk pages, not AfD. While it is somewhat independently notable that either the government has refused to release his name or the arrested person has refused to give it, this is nothing to waste AfD's time about. -- Kendrick7talk 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Afd is exactly the right place to discuss if this article should be deleted. By all respect i think that you wasting our time. Sure sourcing is not required to do mathematics. But sourcing is required under our rules of writing Wikipedia articles. And i would like to ask you to base your argumentation on WP policies specially the from me mentioned one.
 * I assume from your comment that you do not have any secondary source that mention an unknown Tajiki in Guantanamo. Nor do anybody else has seen a valid secondary source.
 * Sure i would agree we should have this article if we had at least a few secondary sources that would have mention an unknown Tajiki in Guantanamo but we do not have them. From WP:NOR "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." IQinn (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep merge (see below) -- Nominator's objections seem to boil down to (1) asserting the name is the result of "original research"; and (2) writing as if it were an accepted fact that the existing sources are primary sources. Well, the nominator was certainly free to suggest an alternate name, on the talk page.  WRT to whether the existing references are secondary sources or primary sources -- I have addressed the nominator's misconceptions in several other discussions.  I am sorry to say it seemed to me they choose to continue to assert that sources like those used here are primary sources without making a meaningful reply.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If the DoD were to officially clarify who was being referred to in the references of course I would agree to a merge. An informed commentator could make an educated guess as to who the references referred to.  But, our guesses have no place in article space, because we aren't WP:RS.  To insert our guess into the article, or to merge this with an article, based on a guess, would be an actual instance "original research".  I dispute the article, in its current state, relies on original research.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another name for something that does not exist? Do you have one? Do you want to call him ISNxxx? Do you have his ISN?


 * It is a simple lie of user Geo Swan that we had not addressed the topic of "primary source". It had been addressed on his talk page and after the discussion showed that user Geo Swan's arguments were weak. User Geo Swan did not continue the discussion. I have ask user Geo Swan multiple times to continue the discussion but he did not do so. Instead user Geo Swan continues his unproductive behavior by adding comments full of ad hominum arguments to talk pages and Afd's.


 * Please do familiar yourself with our policies. The fact is that there is only one document for the whole article and this document is prepared by the US military the same US military that runs Guantanamo. The source is too close to the event to call it secondary. In addition these documents are heavily redacted incomplete and parts of the information in these documents could be based on torture. We would violate our very basic rules if we would leave it up to any WP editor to do interpretations of them in any way.


 * Regardless you call it "secondary" or i call it "primary". The idea of an unknown prisoner is not directly mentioned in the solely "primary" document you have based the article on and we do not have any other source. No newspaper article nor any other source.


 * The idea itself of an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" had been created by the Wikipedia author who wrote the article. He found a document that mention an prisoner from Tajikistan then he took a second document "the list of all Guantanamo prisoners" and found himself unable to assign this document to any of the Tajiki captives and there were several captives from Tajikistan in Guantanamo. The idea of an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" has only been created by combining these two documents. For sure a classic WP:OR.


 * I do not think we should have an article on every document a Wikipedia editor can not assign to any of the captives. There are other documants, as we speak about a set of thousands of redacted documents. Maybe we could rename the article to "Guantanamo document of an Tajiki captive that could not be assigned to any of the captives by Wikipedia editors"? No. That would be WP:OR again because we do not have any WP:RS that mention this idea.


 * Sure i know we can ignore all rules. But am not a fan of it and it further damages the quality of Wikipedia if we do not take our own core policies very serious that were cerated to assure a quality article. I can only repeat it again: From WP:NOR "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."


 * Finally, there have been a few Afd's in the past now where editors have disrupted the discussion by filibustering instead of delivering sources and i hope that that will not be another one. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't call other contributors liars.
 * I have addressed the misconception you have put forward before, that OARDEC the agency that convened the 2004 CSR Tribunals and annual review hearings from 2005-2008 could be conflated with JTF-GTMO, the agency tha ran the camp and conducted the interrogations. OARDEC couldn't even get enough cooperation from JTF-GTMO to allow the captives' to keep their allegation memos.  JTF-GTMO routinely failed to give OARDEC enough cooperation to search the evidence locker for documents the captives thought would clear them -- like their passports, evidence the captives knew was in Guantanamo because their interrogators routinely brought them to interrogation sessions.
 * If you object to the name of this article I repeat, why didn't you raise your concern on the article's talk page, and suggest an alternate name, or say you thought the article required an alternate name? How about "Unclearly identified Tajiki captive in Guantanamo"?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:RS -- Historian Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files, quotes from the transcript of Maroof Salehove.  The passages he quotes are identical to passages in the unclearly identified transcript.  After doing enough reading an intelligent person could make an educated guess as to the identity of the individual in the documents.  But only the educated guesses of WP:RS belong in article space.  Maroof Salehove was one of my two top guesses.  To have jumped from my guess to clearly identify, or even suggest, that this was Salehove's transcript would have been "original research".  Based on the recently found reference I am prepared to change from keep to merge to Maroof Salehove.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not lie than other people do not need to point out that you lie.
 * Merge? No, let's delete it. We as an encyclopedia do not base our articles on personal research or guessing.
 * As i said i personally do not think another name could fix the original research. "Unclearly identified Tajiki captive in Guantanamo"? You have any WP:RS that mention there is an "Unclearly identified Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". I do not think so. Once can only come to this conclusion by combining sources. What is classic WP:OR. There is not a single source that speaks about an unclearly identified Tajiki.
 * "Guantanamo document of an Tajiki captive that could not be assigned to any of the captives by Wikipedia editors" Really the only name i can come up even after your comment. Crap name for a crap article that should be deleted as Wikipedia is not the place for original research. 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than calling other contributors liars, do you think it would be possible that you could comment on whether you agree that historian Andy Worthington, the author of a highly regarded book on Guantanamo captives, and co-director of a film about the Guantanamo captives, is competent to establish that the un-numbered transcript is that of Maroof Salehove?
 * I thought everyone here agreed that once a WP:RS was located, that established whose transcript this was, we would merge this article into the article on that individual. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly i did point out that i think that one statement that was made here was a lie and i think that is important.
 * I think i have comment on the Andy Worthington source. He does not mention in the reference that you have provided here that the un-numbered transcript is that of Maroof Salehove. You are interpreting something into this reference that is not there. It might be true and you might be right but we do not do original research. We need a secondary source that directly says look this un-numbered transcript belongs to that captive. This article here is pure original research and the crap should be deleted.
 * For Maroof Salehove we can use all documents that reliable sources assign to him and we can reference to. The best one is here the The Guantanamo Dockets who have sorted these documents. And somehow one of the documents there assigned to Maroof Salehove looks similar to the one we are speaking about here. I have told you before to base these articles more on third party research like The Guantanamo Dockets than on your personal research. Looking at your userspace one can understand how much research you have done on the "primary" sources but i suggest you would base these set of articles more on secondary and third party sources. What would increase the quality of the article and what would avoid us wasting time to try to prove or disprove your theories. I personally do not think that there is much to merge to Maroof Salehove and i think this article here could just be deleted. IQinn (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, possible rename, per given reasons. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please name the reasons for your keep vote? IQinn (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still interested to hear the arguments for keep from you if there are still some? IQinn (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If multiple users suggest they would prefer I elaborate my reasons for supporting the already-given reasons, I would be happy to do so. (But in the spirit of Do not feed the trolls I am going to refuse to entertain deliberately provocative users as I believe the assumption of good faith has long been exhausted in relations between myself and this user...my apologies if that seems overly passive-aggressive in response) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:22, 9 March 2010 (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.