Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh

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 Keep, reliable third party sources have been added. Fram 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zahid Al-Sheikh

Zahid Al-Sheikh (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)
    • Revised, see below. -- Kesh 17:51, 25 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 00:50, 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 21:47, 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)
Whether the author has been POV-pushing or not is absolutely irrelevant to an AfD. You are not asked to condone the current version of the article, , only that one should exist. Please rewrite POV articles, do not try to have them deleted. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant that the author has created these articles to POV push, rather than because the subjects are notable. -- But|seriously|folks  08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:11, 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)
  • 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) 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment is there a source for 'worst of the worst'? That might be notable if it can be verified. (Asking as I didn't see it in the article). Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
CommentThose seem to be comments about the detainees in general. There's no mention of any one person in particular. Comments about the detainees in general would suggest there's probably more point to merging this into one article. (Also, would you mind not making your comments small. It can be hard to read.) Thanks. --Bfigura (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura (talk) 17:32, 25 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 02:05, 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 02:05, 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) 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - is the one event this person is supposedly notable for notable in and of itself? If so, is there a reason we can't stop wasting time and just merge and redirect to said event? RFerreira 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I have found some additional references -- including the 9-11 Commission's report. I hope this answers your questions. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:31, 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)
    • There is a mystery here:
    • Stifle's preceding comment that justified deletion based on "one event", is date-stamped over half-an-hour after I added half a dozen additional referenences. I think we can all agree that no one can reasonably assert WP:BLP1E when the subject
    • Played a role in resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
    • Allegedly played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing;
    • Allegedly played a role in planning Operation Bojinka;
    • And directed non-governmental organizations that aid refugees;
    • I am going to assume good faith, and assumme Stifle started their comment earlier today, and got diverted, and didn't think to check the currect state of the article when he or she finally got around to making the submission.
    • I am going to question using WP:NPOV as a justification for deletion. The various deletion documents used to be pretty clear that the recommended action if a wikipedian had a concern that an article did not comply with WP:NPOV was to rais their concern on the article's talk page -- not deletion.
    • FWIW, in general, I would encourage people who are going to participate in the deletion fora to go for quality participation, not quantity. I would encourage people to not just read other people's comments, but to actually take a look at the article in question for themselves. Geo Swan 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. I should explain that I participate in a reasonably large amount of AFDs and tend to open up a lot of articles at a time in several tabs, then go through them and comment on the AFD. Sometimes I get called away to do something else, leaving the tabs open. It's likely, as Geo Swan suggests (I don't remember all of this myself as I have been preoccupied with several other concerns this week), that I was reading the earlier version. Thanks to Geo Swan for calling my attention back to the debate on my talk page, and keep the new version with a warning to trim for POV. The article should be about the person concerned and should not be aimed at publicizing a cause, raising awareness, or opposing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, irrespective of how reprehensible we may think it is. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. This particular person undoubtedly he, for he is either of of the significant leaders, or very close to them. 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) 01:43, 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)
*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) 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura (talk) 17:31, 25 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 neutrality.DGG (talk) 03:17, 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)
I couldn't agree more. I think this is the most cogent statement I've seen in this series of AfDs stating how BLP applies to this article. --Bfigura (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) striking see below, --Bfigura (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I know the various deletion guidelines suggest adding articles you comment on to your watchlist. I pointed out, on the {{afd}}, that I did more research, and found additional references.
    • When User:Stifle left a comment, half an hour after I added the additional references, I left a second, more detailed note. I keep multipe windows open. I told Stifle I could understand how he might have missed
    • Zahid al-Sheikh is not a Guantanamo captive.
      • Zahid al-Sheikh fought in Afghanistna in the 1980s.
      • Zahid al-Sheikh is suspected of playing a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
      • Zahid al-Sheikh is suspected of helping to plan Operation Bojinka, in 1995.
      • Zahid al-Sheikh became a director of various NGOs that aid refugees, from 1991 through 2001.
    • Stating the obvious, this is four events, not one event. Geo Swan 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per GeoSwan's NPOV additions. Clearly this isn't a coatrack now. --Bfigura (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Okay, I missed Geo Swan's earlier update on this article. My apologies. That said, the new version is much better. I'm still not totally convinced it passes WP:BLP, but it's no longer a WP:BLP1E issue. It can probably be improved even more from this point, so I'll abstain and just call my !vote Neutral for now. -- Kesh 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Reading the article I find nothing in it that convinces me of the notability of the subject, most of the references appear from glancing at the references list to refer to persons other than the subject. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per GeoSwan's additions.--Aldux 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems well referenced. POV arguments for delete are being abused. POV is a case for re-write, not delete. --SmokeyJoe 06:41, 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.