Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

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.

The article is about a Guantanamo Bay detainee who, judging from the article, is notable only for being a Guantanamo Bay detainee ("generic detainee"). It is mostly a compilation of content from US government documents concerning his detention. To determine consensus, I am also looking to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, which concerned another generic detainee and resulted in "delete", the recent DRV that endorsed the deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination), also about a generic detainee, which in retrospect I probably should have closed differently. (GeoSwan asserts that several similar AfDs have resulted in "keep", but he provides no links, and I can't find such AfDs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/archive.)

The primary arguments for deletion made by the majority of participating editors (here and in the other cited discussions) are that the generic detainee is covered in any detail only in documents produced by the government detaining him, which (according to the editors holding this opinion) leads to WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:BLP issues because of the lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. On the whole, the arguments put forth by the substantial minority of "keep" advocates do not conclusively rebut this position:

Leaving aside the question whether or not the US government documents are reliable sources (I've seen little that suggests that they are not, insofar as they are concerned with the facts of the man's detention), the crucial issue here is the lack of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Everybody who is detained under a modern legal system has a lot of government paperwork generated about him, but our consensus (both as reflected in WP:BIO and in these deletion discussions) is that such paperwork is a primary source and does not suffice for notability, or else all prisoners would be notable just for having a government file.

This means that Guantanamo Bay detainees need to have substantial secondary coverage (specifically about them, not about the detention issue as a whole), and that's where this individual falls short. As far as I can see, all we have are these articles in which he is named as belonging to a group of six released Yemeni detainees. This would possibly qualify as sufficient sourcing for an article about this group of detainees, but it's far from the level of coverage that would enable us to write an article about the individual detainee.

After weighing the strength of the arguments that have been made here in the light of the community's wider consensus as established in WP:BIO, and in the light of the recent deletion discussions about generic detainees, I find that we have consensus to delete this article. This does not preclude well-sourced coverage of this man in a list of detainees or in any other appropriate form except for a dedicated article. Sandstein (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Either that or list all inmates. JerryVanF (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am studying the matter but it may take more time than the AFD is running. Not only that but I have to run to the toilet now. JerryVanF (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment fixed AfD listing (please use {{afd2}}; see the detailed directions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion). cab (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The concensus from previous Guantanomo Bay detainee Afd's has been that the detainess are no differnet then any other people and must meet the notabiliy standard of WP:BIO. Therefore, as the article does show that this person has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" the article must be deleted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop saying "Consensus dictates...", that's bullshit and you know it - out of every hundred identical AfDs on Gitmo detainees, a third are "keep", a third are "delete" and a third are "no consensus" depending who's online which week. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is true, a longer discussion is needed. RFC? Something else? Got to run. JerryVanF (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Several dozen articles on Guantanamo captives have been nominated for deletion. Contrary to assertions made above considerably more of them survived their {{afd}} than resulted in deletion.
  • What I have found is that many participants concerns over these articles have been based on misconceptions. --that the Guantanamo captives were convicts. Nominator calls Al Marwa’i an "inmate". If this reflects a belief on the nominator's part that Al Marwa'i is a convict -- if this reflects a lack of awareness on the nominator's part that Al Marwa'i not only has not been been convicted of any crimes, he was detained, for years, without being charged with any crimes. Yes, the Geneva Conventions allow holding Prisoners of War until hostilities are over. But, it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that al Marwa'i was not a Prisoner of War.
  • The assertion was made, above, that other articles related to Guantanamo have been nominated for deletion. Several dozen have been nominated for deletion. The assertion goes on to imply that most of them resulted in delete outcomes. First, I think that the policy is that every {{afd}} discussion should stand on its own. Second, this is highly misleading. Several times as many of those discussions resulted in keep or no consensus outcomes.
  • Regarding the assertion, above, that the article fails to measure up to WP:BIO ... I wonder whether any participants who believe this to be the case would show the courtesy of being specific as to which clause(s) they think it fails to measure up to? Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been 778 known detainees at Guantanamo, though as I wrote below, those that do not have independent, reliable sources of which they are the focus have been deleted. BWH76 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not sure exactly what respondent is trying to say above. I am concerned that the preceding statement implies that 140 articles have been deleted. Several dozen articles related to Guantanamo have been challenged. Less than a dozen have been deleted. Several times as many discussions resulted in keep or no consensus. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was in response to the nominator's "Either that or list all inmates." comment, pointing out that currently Wikipedia seems to have done the latter. I was not trying to say a large number had been deleted--if you add the ~150 articles in the Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list and sub-cats, to the ~640 in the main cat, it seems WP has articles on darn near all detainees. Shawisland (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of these articles was started by one editor: the creator of this entry that is currently up for AfD. Although I can't speak on behalf of other editors, I believe that this may be a contributing factor to the recurring concerns of WP:COAT. BWH76 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if other participants here confined themselves to content, not personalities.
  • I would appreciate it if those who claim some portion of the coatrack essay applies here would state which clause(s) those would be. I take others concerns seriously. But, I can't do that when those who have a concern can't or won't explain what the concern is. Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not meet standards of WP:BLP. The majority of the sources listed are not independent, reliable sources (as they are US military documents), and there are no independent reliable sources for which Al Marwa’i is the subject. After doing some research on this individual, the sources I've found only mention Al Marwa’i's name (aside from the primary sources listed) is in the context of lists of detainees (which falls under trivial coverage); nothing focuses on him. This AfD is similar to this one and this one, both of which were deleted for the same reasons: no independent, reliable sources. BWH76 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The Yemen Times, the Gulf News and the Yemen Observer all have an article about him...how exactly are they not independent media outlets? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Unless you've found something I've not, each of these articles only mention his name. Simply a mention of one's name in an article does not constitute significant coverage. He is not the focus of these or any other articles. If you have found sources in which he is the subject of the coverage (or any other significant independent coverage), please add them to the Wikipedia entry and I would be happy to reconsider! Until then, based upon the research I've done on him, this entry does not meet WP:BLP. BWH76 (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain why you discount the value of the US documents and assert they fail to measure up to the requirements of WP:BLP? You assert that they are "military documents". The Designated Civilian Official has described the staff of his Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants as a mixture of civlilans and military. The Summaries of Evidence memos are based on other documents from a mixture of civilan and military agencies. The CIA, FBI and State Department are civilian agencies -- not military agencies. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - OARDEC files do not constitute independent, reliable sources as was discussed ad nauseum in this AfD which resulted in delete. They are primary sources. BWH76 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but no offense, but summaries of other sources, are, by definition, secondary sources, not primary sources.
  • BLP requires us to be responsible about what we say about living people. Unreferenced allegations are out. But I believe it is a misinterpretation of the policy to argue that allegations have to be verified before they can be repeated in an article. May I remind everyone that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". That the allegations have been made is verifiable.
  • Yes, the earlier {{afd}} records challengers claiming US documents were not reliable, or were not independent. It records those challengers being asked to explain how they arrived at that opinion. It seems to me that some of those challengers were quoting the wikipolicy documents whose authority they called on from memory, because, the wikipolicy documents didn't actually say what some challengers said they said. Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I think that you may still have a fundamental misunderstanding of OARDEC and the administrative documents they produced. These documents were produced with the explicit purpose of judging detainees to determine whether they remain at Guantanamo or may be released. Were OARDEC members present to witness the actions for which detainees have been accused? Of course not. Do these documents have a specific, direct bearing on the detainees on whom they focus? Unquestionably - this is the explicit reason for which they were produced. In other words, these OARDEC documents, in fact, are part of the origin of the subject. They are not part of the origin of the accusations which led to the detention, they are part of the origin of the subject's continued detention.
Additionally, for more explanation on why these documents cannot be considered independent, third-party sources, I again recommend reading this AfD.BWH76 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are agreed that the "Summary of Evidence" memos were summarized, from multiple source documents, prepared by civilian and military intelligence analysts, for the officers who were to make a recommendation as to whether the captives should continue to be detained. So what? In what way does this demonstrate that they are fail to measure up the requirements for reliability, or independence?
  • Are you trying to suggest that the contents of the "Summary of Evidence" memos are unreliable because they weren't written by eye-witnesses?
  • You use the phrase "are part of the origin" three times above. I'd really like to try to understand what point you are trying to make here. Is it possible you could replace this phrase? In the context in which you used it I find it opaque. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this is exactly the sourcing we need for these articles--the newspapers of the person's area. The documents, are reliable for the allegations against him. They are of course not reliable for what he actually may have done, but they are not being used that way. DGG (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, as I wrote above, please include these sources in the article. I have tried to find these articles, but I've not found any significant coverage. Until there are any independent, reliable sources which focus on Al Marwa’i, this Wiki entry should be deleted. BWH76 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing more than another arbitrary article about an arbitrary Gitmo detainee. I'm assuming good faith that this string of articles is not being created as a coatrack, but the assumption's being stretched. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This comment confuses me. I would appreciate an explanation of how this article is "arbitrary". I would appreciate a dialog as to which clause(s) of the coatrack essay respondent thinks is being ignored. I just took another look at the coatrack essay. And I don't see how it lapses from the advice of the author of that essay.
    • People read these articles. People cite these articles, as in this recent example:
    • Thanks for being able to exercise good faith, and engage in dialog. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I feel that this growing series of articles is being used to draw attention to the plight of those who are detained, unjustly or otherwise, in GTMO, rather than to document their life and actions, which is what their article should (only) do. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that if GTMO was closed down in the morning and everyone sent home it would improve the world drastically, but I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for that information. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Just to be clear -- your concern then, with this particular article, is not based on a perception it lapses from compliance with any official wikipolicies or guidelines?
        • You and I seem to be in complete agreement that this article should not take a stand on whether Towfiq's Guantanamo detention was just or unjust. To do so, in article space, would be editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV. But, for the record, this article does not lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV. For the record, if someone had a concern that one or more passage(s) lapsed from compliance with WP:NPOV the deletion policy recommend that correct response would be to raise the concern on the talk page -- not article deletion.
        • You wrote: "...rather than to document their life and actions, which is what their article should (only) do...." Well, it seems to me that this article does document what we know of Towfiq's life and actions -- and thus it not only complies with policy, but with your extra-policy concern.
        • Originally, most captives in Guantanamao were Afghans, then Saudis. Almost half the captives were from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. But most Afghans and Saudis have been repatriated. Only about ten percent of the Saudis remain. Now Yemenis comprise more than a third of the remaining captive. Only a dozen or so Yemenis have been repatriated.
        • Towfiq is one of those few Yemenis who was repatriated. There are reports of a former Guantanamo captive named Tawfiq standing trial. I haven't added that information to the article (yet). And I won't do so unless I can confirm it is the same guy. However, it almost certainly is the same guy. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Tawfiyq is how I'd spell it, but I'm nonstandard! (That's pretty much how it is written in Arabic, the consonants and semivowels written are TaWFiYQ, and I added the two vowel marks a and i.) It's a very common name. All the spellings given have been the same name in Arabic: Taufiq, Tawfiq, Towfiq, Toufiq. The most standard transliteration is Tawfiq. Don't ask me why the standard doesn't write the "Y" which makes the pronunciation clear. (It rhymes with "eek," not with "ick.") The last name, I would write al-Marwa'iy, which means "the person from Marwa," the terminal -iy, (meaning "person from") usually written in transliteration as just "i," if preceded by a vowel, will have a preceding glottal stop before, i.e., the apostrophe, which some sources seem to omit. That title could be a family name, i.e., an ancestor came from Marwa. (I don't speak Arabic, I just read Qur'anic Arabic, so ... I may easily err, I'm just letting you know that the names are the same.)--Abd (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge (This one with similar) These articles, as they are, do seem like Coatracks to me. Much of each article is repetitive. However, this distracts the core issue: Is the specific subject notable? If so, there are sufficient sources, of sufficient reliability, to justify some article, properly done. It might be brief. It seems that the available sources are already listed, but a problem is that the article seems to be a complete compilation of what is in the sources, whereas it might be more appropriate to link to the sources and give only bare highlights; and, if this is the case, many of these articles might be merged. Presently, many details only peripherally related to the subject of the article are in each article. (For example, all the detainees from Yemen might be merged, and only specially notable ones would have their own article. The Yemen detainee article would include the details about negotiations with the Yemen. Those with independent articles would be ones where there are other sources that discuss the specific subject in depth, independently from the military documents and lists or brief mentions in news reports. The conclusion I came to is that all the detainees are notable, by virtue of being a very famous set of detainees, though not necessarily sufficiently notable to have each his own article, and, especially the individual detainee articles shouldn't belabor the overall issue, each one repeating at length the same redundant information. These issues are far too complex to resolve in an AfD, rather, consensus should be sought among interested editors or through RfC etc. I actually started this with a Delete !vote.... To bring these articles to standards, to remove the coatrack aspect, will take quite a bit of work. I'm not willing to invest it and then see the article deleted, been there, done that. If this article survives AfD, I intend to work with other editors involved to clean them up. I'm not interested in coatracking, but I am interested in Wikipedia having clear and clean coverage of the topic.--Abd (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
what I find they need in this regard is to decrease or eliminate the more or less constant sections at the top, along with the image of the hearing room--a valid editing question. But some of this was done to show the great importance of the subjects here, in that the people were involved as individual objects in extremely noteworthy events of world wide significance, and that therefore onevent did not apply. If this could be accepted, there should be no problem in shortening he articles appropriately, but it seems to be argued afresh every single time. DGG (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I like to take on what seem to me to be easy questions and issues, even if to others it seems I'm baying at the moon.... I found this, though, uncommonly difficult. Here is the problem. Without independent review of the situation of each prisoner, extracting what is particularly notable is a form of synthesis, unless we go all the way down to a bare stub, in which case we are better off with a merge. On the other hand, we do it all the time through selection of sources and facts to present in articles, when sources aplenty exist, and the defacto standard is that the editors come to consensus. I'm surprised to find no independent *discussion* except for a few of the prisoners; my guess is that there *are* sources. In Yemen for this guy, for example, or elsewhere in the Arabic media. If I could read Arabic well, that's where I'd look! On the other hand, it seems he may still be in custody, last report, 2007, he was one of two not yet cleared and released) and the Yemeni government may simply not be talking about it. But where was he from? Where is his family? I *think* al-Marwa'i is a family name. But it might have been a nom de guerre, Marwa is a very special place in Islam. I'm uncomfortable with Wikipedia simply being a repeater for a source of official information, given how Wikipedia is structured. (I'm a radical inclusionist, but, to me, radical inclusion requires far better sysems of categorization according to notability than we have; simply making Wikipedia into an echo isn't doing much encyclopedic work. But the official documents aren't searchable, they seem to be scans, and by converting them to text, we do make the knowledge (of the accusations and reports) more accessible. The more I looked, the more complicated it got.) --Abd (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (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.