Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakub Abahanov

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 discussion below indicates that the subject does not pass the requirements of WP:BIO. --jonny-mt 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yakub Abahanov

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Yakub Abahanov
Yakub Abahanov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete Article does not meet WP:BLP as there are no independent secondary sources. There are a few inclusions of this individual in lists of detainees in independent sources, but no sources focus exclusively on him. This entry in Wikipedia is similar to this AfD which was deleted in that the military documents used to justify this article are not independent secondary sources. BWH76 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep, talk page has 34 edits by 12 distinct users discussing the subject. In addition, numerous news articles refer to Abahanov and the two other Kazakhs, without using their specific names, but referring to them as a "A Kazakh who served as a cook for the Taliban" and such. Nominator has a history of requesting deletion of Guantanamo-bay related articles which borders on bad-faith at times. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. Article needs cleanup, but it is not beyond hope. Flagged for rescue. —BradV 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Note:. Is there an existing consensus on the significance of individual gitmo detainees? If so, what about the 646 articles at Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Are we going to AfD them all one at a time? —BradV 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed vote to delete per arguments made below, and existing consensus not to have an article on each detainee. I don't see any evidence that the subject is any more notable than any of the others, and the references only cover this detainee as part of a list. This may be an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. (P.S. I would still like an answer on the above question - it wasn't sarcasm.) —BradV 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This article is quite noteable. archanamiya · talk 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like Raymond Lee Harvey or Thomas Bernard Brigham? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient litmus test for notability.
  • Comment: We do not, in fact, have articles on every individual Pokémon character. They were merged last year with only the most notable Pokémon still having their own articles. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage. A fortiori, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.
  • Agreed that the Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.
  • Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates WP:UNDUE. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating WP:COATRACK.
  • The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons. WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH (he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is not about his activity at GB, its about his prior activity which is being used as justification for his detention at GB. There's several good sources besides the GB transcripts. This article does not have the claimed defects of some of the GB articles, and I really think that at least some of the opposition here is based on a feeling that it is better not to cover these individuals. As for the other articles, yes, we are going to have to look at them one at a time, because some of the people have received more adequate coverage than others. As I think that sources will exists in the individuals native country for all of them, I foresee adding all of them back as people learn how to find them. DGG (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the number of edits on a talk page does not address the reason I nominated this article for deletion and is not a basis for "significant coverage" or anything else. Opinions stating "I think this man is notable" do not mean that there are independent secondary sources which focus on this individual; these opinions (less justification for these opinions) are simply examples of WP:ILIKEIT. It boils down to the fact that there are no independent secondary sources out there (and I've spent time trying to find one, let alone significant coverage) in which this individual is the subject of the article. The sources referenced in the article DO NOT focus on this individual (except for the military documents, which are not independent, secondary sources); if he is mentioned at all in the sources given, his name simply appears on a list. This clearly doesn't meet the basic requirements for WP:BLP nor the basic criteria for WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep multiple references in reliable sources independent of the subject, Afd is not cleanup; this topic is notable, which is all that counts here. Skomorokh 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've gone over this article repeatedly to find any independent sources on this; there are none in this article. There are military documents related to his trial and detainment - primary sources. Again, check out this AfD to see what the consensus has been on these sources - they are not independent secondary sources. There are a few references in the article that mention Abrahamov; he is the subject of none of them - in fact, he is not even mentioned by name in any of the references in the article. This article, despite the rescue tag that was placed on it, still does not satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO. BWH76 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be merged to list of gitmo detainees, or an article on the trials themselves. MrPrada (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It can almost be interpreted as a POV fork, but subject is not notable by himself. He falls well short on WP:BIO. The number of people commenting on an article's talk page is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia policy is satisfied by the article and the subject. The court case would be a much better subject for inclusion here instead. Delete B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable by himself. Another article about an arbitrary GB detainee. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 10 April 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.