Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar

Not a notabile person. Article on Guantanamo Bay lists 520 detainees. No reason is given why this individual merits his own article. Brandon39 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Jwissick 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (see AfDs above) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Brandon's view is that not all the Guantanamo detainees are notable. I've kept my ears open for places where one can download the documents arising from the detainee's Combatant Status Review Tribunal. I've found approximately three dozen documents. I've started going through them. I think they are noteworthy. They reveal what I regard as noteworthy flaws in procedure and discrepancies. Note: I have added to the article since Brandon put his notice on it.-- Geo Swan 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the concern is that while one or two articles are interesting, 520 would just be in order to make a WP:POINT. Without some reason to assert that this detainee is more important than the 519 others, there is no reason to prefer this one. If we just have one article listing the detainees this would account for the noteworthiness while also not leading to an unnecessary proliferation of articles. (Or more likely a biased collection of 10 taken more or less at random) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The United States has been very secretive about who the detainees are, how they came to be captured, what they are accused of, and how much of the evidence against them is classified, and thus unchallengable. Some of the documents make for fascinating reading. So, I think that makes the detainees where the records are public notable. A single article that had a section about each detainee would grow unmanageably long. As the details about the detainees leak out I think we will find that a significatn number of the detainees merit lengthy discussion. -- Geo Swan 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable prisoner. Please explain how he is any more notable than any other prisoner in any other prison in the world. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- Geo Swan 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Suppose this was 40 years ago. Would you argue that, let's say, Rosa Parks, didn't deserve an article of her own? Would you argue that an article about her was just "America bashing"? Would you be telling me that I should find a neutral way to add her treatement to the article on Civil Rights? -- Geo Swan 13:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rosa Parks was/is notable because she became a national (even international) public figure, as the central rallying figure for a regional political movement. But writing an article about each individual African American who participated in the boycott, or even each individual African American who was imprisoned under questionable circumstances in the United States, would not be warranted.Brandon39 19:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do not redirect. NN. 143.127.3.10 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the articles should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[1]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:46, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.