Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

The articles subject is not notable, he is merely one of many prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. The lack of information in the article goes to support this. The article is primarily made up of Combatant Trial information and nothing about the articles subject but his name and prisoner ID numebr to mark him as notable. NuclearUmpf 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per my own above reasoning, lack of notability. --NuclearUmpf 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - agreed. Unless the author could describe specifics of his case (and how it's unique) then this article would qualify for NN Bio. WU03 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In the 14 earlier nominations to delete articles about Guantanamo Bay detainees one of the recurring themes is for people to cite WP:BIO -- as if it were an official policy. It isn't. It is described as a shorthand to test whether the article might violate WP:VER, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV. I don't believe this article, or any of the other Guantanamo Bay articles violates those real policies.
  • I have started to expand the article.
  • Why is Al Juhani notable? WP:NPOV proscribes me from spelling this out in the article. But, it seems to me that Al Juhani didn't understand what was going on. He is not the only detainee who couldn't understand the difference between the Tribunal, and their regular interrogation sessions. He seems to not understand that this was his sole chance to explain why he should be released. He really blew it. Is this unique? No. A minor fraction of the detainees made the same mistake.
  • Is Al Juhani among the dozen most notable Guantanamo detainees? No. But those working on the wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo detainees, and the camp can't reach the conclusions for the readers. They have to be allowed to reach their own conclusions as to whether the process was fair, whether it was complete, whether the Tribunal's officers mandate allowed them the authority to access all the material they needed to reach a fair conclusion. In order for readers to do that, they need access to what actually happened at the Tribunals, even for detainees who may not have had copious numbers of newspaper articles written about them.
  • In addition, please bear in mind that whether each of these detainees was entitled to a Geneva Convention competent tribunal is a matter of great controversy. If these detainees were American citizens no one would question, for one second, whether they merited articles on them. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- GRBerry 02:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment These articles are usually kept, because they are easy to expand. However, the pdf file that is a target of the second link, and thus creates the ease of expansion, seems to broken at the DoD website at the moment. At least page 29 gave me a square white box less than 1 cm by 1cm the first time, and then completely failed loading the second and subsequent times I tried to load. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli for the most recent AfD discussion (a test case) on stubs like these. GRBerry 02:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, we've been over this ground a dozen times - the articles are notable, we have hundreds of Nazi officers with articles, there's no reason we can't have these (relatively) few identified insurgents and leaders with articles. I'm getting sick of people just nominating a random new GB-er for deletion as soon as another AfD fails. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment There is over 40,000 insurgents in Iraq, do you think they all deserve articles? Being a soldier in an insurgency does not make someone notable, his article does not detail even that he is an insurgent, just that he is at Guantanamo. --NuclearUmpf 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, producing to unmerge when GRBerry's link starts working and it can be expanded. Kappa 06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The link is working now. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Change to plain Keep, good article, wanted poster clearly establishes fame or notoriety. Kappa 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • OK after a message from Umpf I think I'll have to discount the wanted poster. I still think keep for the convenience of users but I believe a merge to some kind of omnibus is acceptable although not desireable. Kappa 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article is part of a set, however the article itself contains no information. Wikipedia is not a depository for US captives. Someone said they are easy to expand, but the expansion is not related to the subject of the article at all. The article is about the man and none of the article except the first sentence contains information about him. The rest is fluff, how many articles are there gonig to be that contain the same information no the tribunals? The tribunals are notable, the people involved are not. Perhaps merging these people into a list is best, as there currently is no content on these people to support seperate articles. --NuclearUmpf 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You assert that "...the article itself contains no information." This is incorrect. The link, to the article, is unique. The DoD released 6,000 pages of transcripts, in response to a court order, forcing them to identify the detainees, after they had exhausted all their avenues of legal appeal. But they didn't fully comply with the court order, at first, because those transcripts didn't have the detainees names, only their detainee ID numbers. Seven weeks later they released a list of names, and detainee ID numbers, making it possible to match the transcripts with the detainee, by name. But doing so required visually scanning through all 6,000 pages. I did the work of correlating all the transcripts with the detainees by matching them by their detainee ID number. It took about 20 hours.
  • There is no other public place on the internet an interested reader can use to find a detainee's transcript without spending hours visually scanning through all 6,000 pages of transcripts. Those transcripts are not machine readable. Scanning through them takes hours.
  • So, sorry, your assertion that "...the article itself contains no information." -- is incorrect. The link itself is an unique, valuable resource, since it potentially saves readers hours of useless work.
  • As for the material that briefly summarizes the purpose of the Tribunals. Yes, those same paragraphs occur in other articles about Guantanamo detainees. And, if you were to look at the articles about the chemical elements, or the members of the US congress, you would find that they repeated material that was in articles about the other chemical elements or the other members of the US congress. So far as I am concerned this is not a meaningful criticism. When I started writing these articles I didn't put in the introductory paragraphs about the Tribunals, and, from the reactions I got, some readers really needed to have the context laid out for them in the article itself. Those paragraphs are brief. I believe they are accurate and written from an NPOV. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentThere are 50 articles that all contain the same content in one PDF file and one other article. Your reason for this is not because they are notable, but because its great for people who want to find their testimony? Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for easy to find testimony. --NuclearUmpf 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Where did you get the idea that the DoD released all 6,000 pages of documents in one PDF file? They released the documents in 75 PDF files, which varied in length from 16 pages long to well over 350 pages long. What do you mean when you refer to "easy to find testimony"? Are you stating that the unique links I spent 20 hours crafting are redundant, because the testimony is "easy to find"? Or, are you arguing that we shouldn't be helping readers find that testimony? If this is what you mean could you give a fuller explanation as to why you believe this? -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- reasons given in response to other contributor's questions.
  • Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the edits to it are from me.
• comment -- merging to one large omnibus article is unworkable, for a number of reasons:
  1. That article would be hundreds of kilobytes long.
  2. links to the individuals, if redirected to a large, omnibus article, would rob the readers of any of the value of having the links in the first place.
  3. lol. Many other reasons, but I have run out of time to explain. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• History -- Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion -- Geo Swan 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is it hundreds of megs if none of these articles actually have individual content. The same PDF can be linked for people to reference each persons testimony, testimony which apparently ammounts to, "I will not answer your questions." All of the names can be put into a single article with an explanation of what the tribunal is and a link to the testimony, why are we creating individual articles for each name, splashing in the same tribunal information into each of the 50+ then a smalle xcerpt of their testimony which ammounts to "no I didnt do it" "No I will not answer your questions", this is honestly bordering on fluff since the testimony isnt saying anything more then, "not guilty" but doing it in 3 paragraphs instead of a sentence.
  • Sorry, that is kilobytes, not megabytes. My brain wrote kilobytes, my fingers wrote megabytes.
  • Articles that are larger than dozens of kilobytes raise problems for wikipedia readers who have slow connections or are using computers with limited resources. They are also dozens of pages long, raising a human-factors problem when they are being read. -- Geo Swan 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding your characterization of the detainee's testimony as nothing more than "not guilty":
    • How many articles did you read?
    • Are you aware that the Bush administration routinely describes these guys as the "worst of the worst"? Only last summer the camp commandant Admiral Harris, said "there are no innocent men at Guantanamo". At that time Murat Kurnaz, Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari and Nasrat Khan were half way through their fifth year of extrajudicial detention. When examined, in detail, each of their cases exposes highly alarming hints of dreadful miscarriages of justice.
      • Murat Kurnaz was accused of being friends with the Elalamumble suicide bomber. Except this suicide bomber was alive, and well, and still living in Germany. And both Kurnaz and his friend were thoroughly investigated by German counter-terrorism officials, who cleared them both.
      • Al Kandari was one of the two dozen detainees who was being held, in part, because he was captured wearing a Casio F91W, a cheap digital watch, that has been used for the timer portion of time-bombs. Except, if you do a google image search, you can quickly determine, from the description in his transcript, that he was wearing the much more expensive Casio Prayer Watch.
      • Nasrat Khan acknowledged that he had joined with other patriots to throw foreign invaders out of his country -- except those foreign invaders were the Soviets. Khan had fought against the Soviets when the mujahideen were receiving training, funding, weapons from the USA through the CIA. This was when the CIA, in order to put a spoke through the wheel of the Soviets, encouraged fundamentalist Islamic militants from other countries to go to Afghanistan, to fight foreign invaders. Khan, a very old man, had sufferd a debilitating stroke before the Taliban ever took over Afghanistan, which would have prevented him engaging in any hostilities, without regard to his political preference. But he was one of the many guys in Guantanamo who said they welcomed the US intervention to remove the Taliban. His son was one of the half dozen or so detainees who were picked up because they were guarding armories who acknowledged guarding armories, but on an official, salaried basis, under the rubric of the Afghan Ministry of Defense. He and his son requested Rahim Wardak's testimony to clear them of this charge. Their Tribunal documents describe Wardak as a "Defense Ministry official" -- and said that he couldn't be located. Wardak was then, in fact, the Deputy Minister of Defense. He is currently the Minister of Defense. Maybe his testimony wouldn't have cleared Khan and his son, but the DoD didn't make more than a token effort to try to apply any sanity tests to the allegations against these men. This is not only morally reprehensible, keeping innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo, but it makes us all less safe. The Guantanamo detainment camps cost $100 million per year. The Guantanamo detainment camps ties down two whole battalions of camp guards. These resources could be much better spent elsewhere. Wasting them there makes us all less safe.
      • Or consider the case of Abdullah Khan -- captured in the winter of 2003, he spent his first year and a half at Guantanamo denying his interrogator's accusations that he was really Khirullah Khairkhwa, the guy who read the Taliban's press releases, and briefly the GOvernor of Herat. When Khan was captured it was based on a denunciation that he was really Khairkhwa. Unbelievably no American intelligence official made the effort to test the truth of the denunciation. The real Khirullah Khairkhwa had been captured over a year earlier, and was undergoing his own interrogations in Guantanamo. Khan quickly learned this, when he arrived. He kept telling his interrogators this, and they couldn't be bothered to take a look at the camp roster.
    • Having read about half their transcripts for myself I know that the Denbeaux study's conclusions are entirely accurate. A very significant fraction of the detainees are very likely innocent men. The public needs to be able to read the allegations against the detainees for themselves.

--NuclearUmpf 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You arent even arguing these people are notable, just that you did alot of work and want it to stay, that its hard to match a number to a testimony, none of these are grounds for keeping 50+ articles that have 0 content in them. --NuclearUmpf 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I am arguing that they are all notable. The Geneva Conventions require a captor, like the USA, to use a "competent tribunal" to distinguish between its captives, and determine whether:
    • The captive is an innocent civilian, caught up in a case of mistaken identity, or forcibly evacuated from a fire zone, or reasonable equivalent. The Geneva Convention says that civilian evacues can be sent, temporarily, to refugee camps, but that they should be returned home, as soon as it is safe for them to do so.
    • The captive is a combatant, but a lawful one, who has not violated any of the laws or customs of war. Lawful combatants can be detained, until hostilities cease. But they are supposed to enjoy certain protections and privileges -- ie. POW status. A captive who is a lawful combatant, who has POW status, can't be charged with murder. Killing an enemy, when following all the laws and conventions of war, is not murder. And, if I understand the GC correctly, even killing a comrade, or an innocent civilian, is not murder, if the combatant followed lawful rules of engagement, and the death was a tragic accident.
    • The captive is a combatant, but they violated the laws or customs of war. Once the "competent tribunal" makes this determination the captive can be stripped of many of the protections of POW status. They can be tried. They can be tried for murder, if they killed an enemy soldier.
    • I believe the Geneva Conventions are quite clear. The captor is obliged to treat all captives as if they were entitled to POW status, until a competent tribunal meets, and makes the determination that the captive is not entitled to POW status.
    • The George H.W. Bush administration convened something like 1300 competent tribunals during and shortly after the first Gulf War. Those competent tribunals determined that more than 70% of those captives were innocent civilians. Those competent tribunals determined that all the remaining captives were entitled to POW status. The DoD has army regulations on how to conduct competent tribunals so that they comply with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations. AR190-8, IIRC. The Bush administration has yet to comply with its Geneva Convention obligations, and convene a single competent tribunal on any of the captives taken in Afghanistan. No, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals don't count -- for the reasons you characterized as "fluff". The Combatant Status Review Tribunals did not have the authority to determine whether captives qualified for POW status -- only whether they met the Bush administration's definition of an "enemy combatant".
    • IMO, if we believe in the rule of law, if we respect the rule of law, we comply with our Geneva Convention obligations, and allow all our captives to have the protections of the Geneva Convention POW status, until that competent tribunal determines they don't merit those protections. We extend those protections even to the captives that we suspect are "the worst of the worst". Captives whose detentions violate the Geneva Conventions, for whom we have information from authoritative, verifiable sources, merit articles.
    • Some of the articles on Guantanamo detainees have not been expanded beyond the stub status that gives the surface appearance that they are identical to some readers. There are approximately 400 articles on individual Guantanamo detainees. Approximately one hundred of these articles were based on reports from human rights groups, the captive's families, press reports, habeas corpus requests. When the DoD released the transcripts, I started going through them, and expanding the original 100 or so articles, and creating new articles, based on the transcripts. When I had spent the time necessary to enable myself to match the detainee's name to their transcript, and after I had created a couple of dozen new articles, I realized that the task was quite repetitive, and could be automated. At first, I kept all the stubs on my computer, and only added fleshed-out articles. But then I realized that it could be interpreted that I was hoarding the connection between the names and transcripts, making it almost impossible for other authors to write articles about those detainees. So I uploaded all the stubs. I am plowing through them, as fast as I can. Following the previous nomination to delete a detainee's article I went through all the articles, to measure my progress. At that time something like 145 articles hadn't been expanded beyond stub status. The week when I was responding to that nomination was a washout. As has been this week. Including Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani I swatted 15 articles, leaving about 130. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Well, the link is now working and the article is expanded. This one is pretty much fluff even after the expansion, and could be adequately handled by a merge that preserved the detainee ID number and the link to the particular PDF with the appropriate page numbers. There is even less here than there was for that last test cases I linked above. I continue to believe that the relevant WP:BIO standard isthe one about renown or notoriety due to involvement in newsworthy events. If there is such renown/notoriety, then the articles should reference articles other than the government sources. Not seeing such sources in the article, I think that merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees and redirect is the appropriate result until they are found, at which point the article can be reverted to the current version and expanded from such sources. GRBerry 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Content removal
  • I added some additional content to the article yesterday.
  • The person who nominated this article for deletion removed it.
  • I reverted their deletion with this explanation.
  • Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested in why it was removed and removed again, please see talk page. Only information Geo Swan offered was that arab names are hard to illiterate and so they are the same person. I ask for a source other then him stating this as WP:RS WP:V and WP:OR are important for us to follow. I do not object if you have something other then your own words that arab names are hard to illiterate. --NuclearUmpf 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me NuclearUmpf. I think if you read my explanation more fully you will see that I linked to the wikipedia article on Arabic names. I think I said that they were hard to transliterate, and I think you will find that the wikipedia article backs up that assertion.

As for your concern that the two names may refer to two different individuals. This is a straw argument. No one is disputing this. As I pointed out on the article's talk page readers deserve to know the facts, and they can make up their own mind as to whether the two are the same individual.

Your removal of the {mergeto} tag is, IMO, highly Ill-advised.

Cheers! Geo Swan, not logging in because I only have a few moments, and I am not at home... 70.51.132.154 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:V you arent allowed to make connection simply because you feel like it. --NuclearUmpf 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I am sufficiently familiar with WP:OR and WP:VER thanks. I am not "making a connection simply because I feel like it."

The two names are very similar. The likelihood of them referring to the same individual is high -- FWIW. But, let me repeat. I never stated that the two names refer to the same individual. I invited discussion as to whether the referred to the same individual -- with the {mergeto} tag. And, forgive me being so blunt, but you shouldn't keep removing that invitation to a discussion, based on your personal interpretation. You should state your opinion, on the talk page, and let other readers offer their opinion. If you refer to WP:NOT you will see a subsection entitled: "Wikipedia is not a battlefield." -- Removing the invitation to the discussion, is confrontational. It is consensus destroying, not consensus building.

As I stated on the article's talk page, without regard to whether the two similar names refer to the same individual, both names should be mentioned in this article, for the benefit of readers who assume they are the same. With both names mentioned the reader gets to make up their own mind. I know I am repeating myself, but you haven't addressed this point in your earlier comments, and I think it is a very important one.

I strongly urge you to be more collegial.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who other then you is stating these people can be mistaken, if you cannot provide someone from a WP:RS source in two days I will remove the information again. Please read WP:OR again it seems you failed to see the part about maknig your own conclusions. --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a CNN interview in Washington DC with SAIO Director Nail Al-Jubeir, that refers to a Muhammad al-Juhani -- without specifying which Muhammad al-Juhani the interview subject was talking about. Do you really need me to prove that people could conflate two individuals with similar names? -- Geo Swan 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes some proof that these two individuals are being confused, not that Muhammad al-Juhani was mentioned in the news. There is no proof this person is being confused with the other person. Please provide a source of this. Just because I find a Mike Tyson in a city in New Orleans at the age of 5 doesnt mean I can add him to the Mike Tyson (boxer) article saynig they have been confused. again please provide a source or I will remove the information again in two days. --NuclearUmpf 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When the Saudi official used the name Muhammad Al Juhani that was inherently confusing, if our two names do refer to two separate individuals. Both men would be alleged terrorists. Both men could be referred to as Muhammad Al Juhani. If, on the other hand, the two names referred to a single individual, then referring to him as Muhammad Al Juhani would be perfectly acceptable. So, would the Saudi government know the identity of all the Saudi Guantanamo detainees? Well, variouse Saudi detainees told their Tribunals that a delegation of Saudi officials visited them at Guantanamo, so I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you were confused doesnt mean the Saudi's were. Its like me seeing a report on Mike Tyson and being confused because the kid down the block has the same name, so I goto the Mike Tyson article and write information about the kid down the block to that article, dont say they are related as you did not, just slap a block of text in the middle of Mike Tyson (boxer)'s article about the kid down the block from me. can youprove someone was confused with a source? You seem to be the only one confused and citing confusion. --NuclearUmpf 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your Mike Tyson analogy... You and I don't know how common Muhammad Al Juhani is in Saudi Arabia. I have no problem assuming that Muhammad Al Juhani is at least as common as Mike Tyson. But, all the males born in Saudi Arabia is not the namespace we are talking about. The namespace we are talking about are Saudis who are wanted by, or in the custody of, the USA, because they are suspected of being terrorists. That is only a couple of hundred individuals. Please, let's compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Agreed? Now, if the guy down the street, was not only named Mike Tyson, but was a world famous boxer, that would be a fair comparison.
• I didn't say the Saudi official was confused. I said that if the two transliterations refered to two individuals, then the Saudi official confused the issue for their listeners. I thought I already explained this. When the Saudi official spoke about the suspected terrorist Muhammad Al Juhani they would have then introduced confusion as to which suspected terrorist named Muhammad Al Juhani they meant. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would like this resubmitted for further comment instead of closed when the time runs out if no other people chime in. only 5 people have stated their views and think further opinions are needed. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 22:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I, on the other hand, would like to see this discussion closed, on schedule. NuclearUmpf has been mischaracterizing what I have written. Since I am going to AGF, I should start with the assumption that this is either due to inattention on his part, or lack of clarity on my part. IMO, in either case, NuclearUmpf should have made a greater effort to understand what I have written. I am doing my best to understand his concerns. I'd like him to reciprocate that effort. Civil, tactful questions would have prevented the mischaracterizations. Perhaps someone else can spell out to NuclearUmpf how mischaracterizing what someone has written gives the unfortunate appearance of bad faith, even when those comments were made in good faith, but with a lack of attention to what the other contributor actually said, or actually meant. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I dont appreciate your comments, you have stated yourself that you have added information to this article about people unrelated to the article person in any fashion. People that you have not connected via a source and admittedly have no source linking them in any way. You have added information to this article that violated WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V to extend its size purposely without providing any link other then your understanding that arab names are hard to illiterate, so apparently anyone wioth Muhammed (a common arab name) and Juhani are actually being mistaken for the same person. This is obsurd in its own right as I am sure there are hundreds of arab men with the last name Juhani and what is probably the most common first name. So here is my simple question since you ask for one. Do you have a source linking these two people? --NuclearUmpf 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • NuclearUmpf, in several of my responses I stated my concern that you weren't reading my comments. In this comment above, you repeat your assertion: "noone is even arguing these people are notable". Well, in this comment, predating your comment, I started the major portion of my reply with: "For the record, I am arguing that they are all notable." Surely you can agree this gives the appearance you aren't reading other people's comments? I followed this statement with a detailed explanation. In your comment on WP:AN/I you told the administrators that I was simply reverting your changes -- neglecting to mention that I have diligently explained my actions. Would you please pause, and consider, whether telling your audience that I simply reverted your changes, without saying I make honest, civil attempts to explain myself, is a fair characterization? Please put yourself in my shoes. I am doing my best to understand your concerns. Can you really say you are trying to understand my replies? If so how come my repeated explanations that you are mischaracterizing me go ignored?
      • You keep repeating that I have acknowledged that the two transliterations represent two different individuals. And I keep telling you that you are mischaracterizing my statements. I don't think you understand that there is a difference between not asserting, in the article, that the two transliterations name a single individual, and acknowledging that the two transliterations name two different individuals. I did the former. You keep insisting on asserting on the latter, on User:Kappa, and on [[WP:AN/I. I am not going to assert, in the article, that the two transliteration name a single individual. That is, at present, unverifiable. Asserting this, in the article would violate NPOV. So, I didn't do it. Please stop mischaracterizing my restraint, to comply with NPOV, as an acknowledgement that the two individuals are unrelated.
      • Regarding your comment that it is absurd to conflate individuals based solely on their name... There are on the order of one hundred Guantanamo detainees, whose continued detention is justified, in part, because their name, or one of their "known aliases", was found on a list that American intelligence analysts found suspicious. What kind of lists? Well, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a list of 324 Arabic names on his laptop. A handful of those hundred had their name, or alias, matching one of those 324 names. But some of the other name matches are far less credible. FYI, one of the justifications for continuing to detain Faruq Ali Ahmed was, according to the National Journal: "The board told Farouq that a new piece of evidence had turned up against him, he later told his lawyers. Somebody had said, at some point in the past four years, that they had heard the name "Farouq" over a walkie-talkie during the battle of Tora Bora." Another list was simply a website that listed the known Guantanamo detainees, with the avowed attempt to put pressure on their governments to lobby for their release. If you think it is absurd, have you considered writing President Bush, and telling him so?
      • Regarding your assertion that I am violating WP:RS and WP:V, could you please explain why the Department of Defense and the FBI should not be considered verifiable, reliable sources?
      • Regarding your assertion that I am violating WP:NOR -- it seems to me that WP:NOR does not preclude me noticing the occurrence of two similar names. I don't think it precludes me from finding that article from the Saudi embassy's web-site. I am going to repeat myself. The namespace we are concerned with here is small. It is not the namespace of all Saudi males. It is the namespace of all the Saudis that the USA regards as threats to its National Security. And this is a small namespace. Namespace collision in such a small namespace is noteworthy. I don't think I have to prove this.
      • Do you wish to explain which of my comments you don't appreciate? If it is the comment that you keep mischaracterizing me, I'm sorry, but I think that is undeniable. I didn't close my mind to the possibility that I what I wrote wasn't clear. But, since I am doing my best to understand your concerns, I would continue to appreciate you to try to understand my concerns. Your final question implies something that is not verifiable -- that the two transliterations refer to two different individuals. Forgive me, but I am going to suggest that this is not a good starting point for the questions you are going to ask that show you are making an effort to understand my points. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the major political events of this century, to date. That the Bush administration has unilaterally decided to ignore certain rights granted to detainees under the Geneva convention is of major significance. Everyone detained at Guantanamo, whether legally or not, whether "innocent" or "guilty" is notable and should be included in this encyclopaedia. This discussion is long overdue for closure, although I will not do it myself. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

THis is on par with arguing that everyone in the World Trade Center deserves an article because the even twas notable or everyone on the planes. Or everyone at Tienaman Square because that event was notable, how about every prisoner in Abu Ghraib, how about every prisoner in every jail outside of the US, but is ran by the US? I mean where does it stop, noone is even arguing these people are notable, just that the event was notable, this is obsurd. I hope the admin reviewing this can see that noone here has so far argued this person is notable or proven they are by showing any media reports. --NuclearUmpf 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I think every victim or survivor of the WTC attack merits an article? Sure, why not, if there is meaningful content, verifiable from an authoritative source? For what it is worth I started two articles about WTC survivors, Brian Clark and Stanley Prainmath. Regarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib -- well, I read much of the Fay Report. The Taguba Report estimated that more than 60% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners had been rounded up in error. The Fay Report went into more detail. The US practice was to cordon off an area and arrest ALL the military age males. Can I imagine circumstances where this approach would make sense, be acceptable? Yes. Provided the technique was put to use under very limited circumstances, and there was a prompt mechanism to release those who were innocent, and they were treated with dignity and respect until that determination was made. What the Fay Report documented was that over 90% of those rounded up were determined to have been rounded up in error. And, the reason they weren't released is that a high-level committee of busy senior officers, who didn't get along with one another, had to meet to agree on the releases. General Karpinski, the senior Military Police officer was on it, and General Barbara Fast, the senior intelligence officer in Iraq, and Colonel Warren, the senior JAG officer. They were busy, and they didn't get along, so the meetings that would have approved the release of the prisoners kept getting postponed, for months. That is the reason the prison population swelled. That is why Abu Ghraib, and, presumably, the other prisons, continued to be full of men whose innocence had been determined months earlier. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much now read WP:BIO and see why these articles would be out of line as well as this one. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out, in the very first paragraph of my very first comments on your nomination, WP:BIO is not a wikipedia policy. It is a document that is based on other policies, WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you are just realizing that this is my view now it strongly suggests you aren't bothering to read the comments to your nomination. IMO, if you nominate an article for deletion you should feel obliged to make an effort to try to read and understand the comments of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up, if you add it I will just remove it, if this is a problem then call an admin. You are asking questions that show you are not reading policy. Why can you put that you notice a similarity? This isnt your blog, this is a place for facts and reporting what others have said, you are not a reliable source. Noone is debating that another person with a much shorter and not very similar name exists, you just havent given a single source saying they are the same person. That is why you fail WP:RS not because you dont have a reliable source saying they exist, its because you dont have a reliable source saying they are the same. I know ... you arent saying they are ... then good there is no problem with me removing it. You have a problem with this then as I said call an admin. I have tried in good faith numerous times to explain this and you seem to be not reading policy or just flat out misrepresenting it. If you really think WP:RS and WP:V just has to go toward existence and not the actual thing you are attempting to state (a link) then you need to read the policy again. Its like me putting a large section on cocaine into the Mike Tyson article then showing a ATF report saying Cocaine exists and then showing a boxing magazine saying Mike Tyson exists and reporting that I am not saying he does it, just that they both exist according to WP:RS and I think it should be in the article. --NuclearUmpf 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable on his own. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per Cactus.man Travb (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So you believe WP:BIO is not relevant? --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I see why you are here, I am sorry if you took that post personal. --NuclearUmpf 19:44, 28 September 2006 (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.