Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. WP:BLP is also valid for suspected terrorists and the like, and the lack of third party sources about this person (or at least such sources which use his name) is a very vald concern. Fram 10:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah Gulam Rasoul

Abdullah Gulam Rasoul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand this concern. The allegations against him, and his testimony on his behalf is about him. The nominator, and this respondent, are perfectly free to regard the allegations against the captive, and his tetimony on his behalf, as not worthy of their notice. But should they be decideing for everyone else that the allegatins and testimony is not worthy of anyone else's notice?
    • Respondent above asserts that the captive would only merits coverage for "one event".
    • The most recently released Summary of Evidence memo states that he was captured with two Casio F91W watches. This is the same model that Ahmed Ressam the Millinium bomber was carrying Ahmed Ressam was carrying two so he could use them to as the timers for timebombs at LAX airport. The DoD was widely criticized for using possession of a watch as a justification for holding a captive for years in in Guantanamo. Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is the first captive I have come across who was accused of carrying two of these watches.
    • He was alleged to have injured by ordnance in the 1990s. Why isn't this considered a separate event?
    • Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is one of the captives who explicitly testified his own Koran was treated with disrespect by a guard. We don't have to believe this testimony to regard it as meriting coverage. There were world-wide riots over the allegations of Koran abuse. People were killed in these riots. They attracted world-wide media coverage. Some commentators stated that the allegations were all third person, that one of those complaining were complainabout somethin they saw with their own eyes. Well Abdullah Gulam Rasoul testified he saw it with his own eyes. And that merits coverage.
    • Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is alleged to have been posted to the Kuli Urdu barracks. Why isn't this considered a separate event? Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep -- nominator has used the same text to nominate two other articles for deletion. The same response I offered there applies here. I tried my best to understand the nominator's interpretation of {{blp}} elsewhere. I am quite frustrated that nominator won't acknowledge that his demand that we prove the truth of the assertions in the sources we cite is contrary to WP:VER, which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". Cheers! Geo Swan 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks  01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I disputed that I have ever engaged in POV-pushing on this wikipedian's talk page. This wikipedian is an administrator, and should be trying to set an example. He should know better than to engage in baseless name-calling. Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Some administrators agree with this interpretation of {{blp}}. And several administrators disagree. My own reading of WP:VER and WP:NPOV is that they do not require that the allegations we report be true, only that they are verifiable. I think this was a very wise decision on the part of those who drafted those policies, because there will be endless debate over what is true, while resolving what is verifiable is much less contentious. Further, if we were to take a stand on what was true, as the nominator and this respondent suggest, we would have to abandon neutrality. That is not our role.
    • The nominator knew there was a controversy over this interpretation of {{blp}}. I think it was regrettable he chose to proceed with further {{afd}} under this justification until after the controversy over this interpretation was resolved. Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Subject has been held, without charge, for five years.
      • Subject has been stripped of the traditional principle of the presumption of innocence.
      • Subject has had the information from three of these controversial administrative procedures made public.
      • Subject is being held, in part, because he was present at the riot at Qali-Jangi prison in Mazari Sharif
      • I'm new to this WP:BLP1E argument. Can you explain why these should be interpreted as a "single event"?
      • Cheers! Geo Swan 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Because they're all about one thing: his detention in Guantanamo. There is no other biographical information about this person, or the other two articles up for deletion. They are, in essence, only about a single event in this person's life, which fails WP:BLP1E. At best, some of this information would be relevant in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article, but there's not enough biographical information to have a neutral article about these people as individuals. -- Kesh 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Any article which is not about the person, but about an event they were involved in, is not a biographical article and thus fails WP:BLP1E. All three of the currently nominated articles are exactly in this vein. If other articles about detainees are similar, yes, they should also be deleted. If those other articles have neutral biographical information, with a sub-section on the person's detention, that would be more proper. I can't speak in detail without knowing which other articles you're referring to, though. -- Kesh 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete BLP1E is pretty clear and this appears to be yet another case of it. Notability is something that is established over a period of time, not whipped up in a very small and short lived media storm.--Crossmr 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure five years of arbitration, administrative reviews, newspaper stories and criminal charges make these people noteworthy over a period of time, not a "short-lived media storm". I mean hell, go delete Chris Crocker for that nonsense, not Guantanamo detainees alleged to be among the worst terrorists in the world. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. All of the coverage is about the detainees plural. There's no substantial or neutral coverage of individuals (aside from primary sources whose neutrality is disputed). --Bfigura (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...that's not true at all. There are media stories about pretty much every detainee held. As they're repatriated, charged, or their lawyers approach tthe media. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Where then are the sources on Abdullah Gulam Rasoul? • Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If I google him and eliminate all sites that fail WP:RS, I am left with nothing at all. In fact, of those five hits, four are of no use to us. Three are Wikipedia mirrors, and Spock.com is not reliable for anything at all. An all-dates Google News search has nothing. Even the "Did you mean?" suggestion from Google News has nothing. That is all dates--full archive. Do you know of any other sources that are not primary sources (e.g., US Government)?
All we have is this list of names, and nothing else. • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I have been asked to revisit this by Geo Swan. I am still in favour of deletion because this article is only a negatively-slanted summary of what has happened to the subject since his detention and does not contain any substantial details about his life or, indeed, why he should be considered notable beyond the one event. We may have (justified) opposition to Guantanamo Bay, but we can't hang up our problems with it on a coatrack like this. I also incorporate by reference Kesh's excellent comment below. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them. DGG (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutral. DGG (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I read comments here that are obviously sincere. I would really appreciate it if those who say this article is insufficiently referencd to explain their reasoning. I don't understand this concern. The wikipolicies only say that primary sources must be used with care. And I used them with care.
    • The comment above praises the quality of the nominator's research. Nominator also nominatee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh at the same time. That nomination is a word for word copy of this nomination, right down to complaining about Zahid Al-Sheikh situation as a Guantanamo captive. The trouble is that Zahid Al-Sheikh is not a Guantanamo captive, and the article about him never said he was a Guantanamo captive.
    • Nominator is on record as saying that he thinks the DoD is doing a good job running Guantanamo. We live in free countries. Nominator is perfectly free to believe whatever he wants. He is perfectly free to say whatever he wants -- elsewhere. He would not be free to say -- "ignore the captive's tesimony. The DoD is doing a good job!", in articles about the captives. He would be perfectly free to quote Mitt Romney saying the DoD is doing a good job. Atrtibuting quotes is not a violation of POV.
    • Similarly, the nominator would be out of bounds arguing we should delete articles simply because he does not believe the captive's testimony. Our readers are entitle to read material here that is written from a neutral point of view, and complies with the wikipedia's other core policies, which I believe this does, and make up their own minds as to whether they are going to believe the DoD is doing a good job. I am not a mind reader. I am not suggesting the nominator consciously chose to suppress this material simply out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But other people have made clear that this is exactly the reason they don't want the wikipedia to cover this material. Geo Swan 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The secondary sources do not even mention Rasoul by name. Obviously the situation is notable but there is no notability to Rasoul that I can see; he is as un-notable (or notable, if you prefer) as the people that died in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge (we had the names at one point but I see that they are gone now). Say what you will about the situation but that does not imply notability for the victims (or the "suspects") --Justanother 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources in the captions don't particularly reference the captive. That is because some other wikipedians complained about the text in the captions be referenced. Other wikipedians challenged that the captives were chained to a ringbolt in the floor. So I provided that reference User:Butseriouslyfolks complained about an earlier wording of this caption, that stated that most of the Tribunals went unattended by the Press. So I repalced that passages with a passage that referenced a DoD official stating that only 37 of the Tribunas were attended by the Press. I would really appreciate an explanation as to how the use of these references is grounds for deletion.
    • The various policies do not proscribe using Primary sources. They merely state they should be used with care. I used them with care. Geo Swan 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I mean simply that the secondary sources used in the article do not mention Rasoul by name (unless I missed the mention). It almost seems that these Gitmo articles are based on "expected notability" or "supposed notability", i.e "these guys, as individuals, would be notable if someone were to write a story on them". WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Justanother 12:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The transcripts don't explicitly identify him by name. But they do mention him epxlicitly identify him -- by his ID number. Each page of the transcripts is identified by his ID number. So, except for the references in the captions, which I explained above, all the references do explicitly identify him. I hope this helps you. Geo Swan 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This individual is not notable in his own right. He is not different from any of the other Gitmo detainees, in fact, much of the article isn't about him, but about the Combatant status review tribunals as a whole. Fails WP:N. --Raoulduke47 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand this argument. Just because they all ended up in Gauntanamo doesn't mean the captives are indistinguishable. They each faced an unique set of allegations. And they each provided unique testimony on their onw behalf. In his case he face three different unique sets of allegations
    • If, in your opinion, the article contains extra material, how does that become grounds for deletion? Surely that is a concern that you should address on the talk page, or in an edit summary, when you delete the material you consider redundant or out of place? Geo Swan 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of who is distinguishable, it's a question of who is notable, per WP:N. And Abdullah Gulam Rasoul never did anything to make himself notable. He is just another Taliban footsoldier, like there were thousands of others, he wasn't a famous Taliban leader, or a prominent member of any islamist organization. All he did was to get captured by US forces, and sent to Guantanamo.
Also, removing "extra material" would not help at all, because it is the fundamental nature of the article that is flawed. The central theme is not Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, the person, about whom very little is known, or presents any interest. It is, in fact, about the Guantanamo detention system, and the combatant status review tribunals. This is, IMO, the only aspect that is worthy of study. If you were to rename the article to "the case of Abdullah Gulam Rasoul", then you could argue over the possible notable legal aspects of his review. As it stands, this article is not acceptable. --Raoulduke47 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As Raoulduke47 says above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable, third-party sources appear, such as coverage in a news article, book, or journal article. --Delirium 08:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge reduced content to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and redirect. References are unusual and do not necessarily fail WP:N, and so keep is not unreasonable. However, much of the content is either not about the subject or is not clearly referenced, leaving little clearly verified informtion about the subject. No good reason to delete instead of merge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe 06:38, 31 October 2007 (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.