Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

You have to be crazy to say that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unnotable. That being said, it does not mean that every prisoner that was or is held at Guantanamo Bay is notable. There has been over 700 detainess held at one point on Guantanomo Bay. Should there be an article on each prisoner? Of course not. Except, of course, if there's substantial coverage about the person that WP:BIO requires. This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage on this specific person. The refs provided are just a bunch of Army files were he is listed as a prisoner.

The creator of this article Geo Swan (talk · contribs) continuously creates these articles even after similar articles go through afd with the vast majority of them ending up as "no concensus", "redirect", or "delete". Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, if only because this is the first time I've seen evidence that Usama apparently runs a law school. In all seriousness, keep because we have an obligation not unlike Snopes.com that when somebody is labelled "the worst of the worst" and faced with punishment that goes beyond what can be prescribed under the legal code...we have a responsibility to gather and present the facts of the case and provide context. I agree the article is poorly-written and could use some help, but deletion is not the answer.Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ILIKEIT. Please give relevant reasons for the non-deletion of the article. I don't know where you are getting your info about law school (is it a joke?).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article before proposing it for deletion next time. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator asked where Sherurcij got the info about attending Osama bin Laden's law school? One of the allegations Ahmed Adnan Muhammed Ajam faced was

The detainee stayed at a legal college in Kandahar owned by Usama bin Laden."

Anyone can find that allegation in the article and on page 84 of this source, and on page 93 of this source.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is merely a confusion of the issues. Whether he attended law school (as Sherurcij originally claimed) or just regular college (as now claimed) and whether it is mentioned somewhere in the hundred page complaints or it isn't, is immaterial. Osama having a school is no way connected to the notability of this subject. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please actually read what your correspondents wrote, before you reply. Please reply to what your correspondents actually wrote.

Three memos that summarized the allegations against Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam have been published. They were drafted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each of these memos was published together with memos against other captives in three separate pdf files that are each about one hundred pages long. But the 2004 memo is one page long, and the 2005 and 2006 memos are just two pages long. These memos aren't "somewhere" in one hundred pages of complaints, as asserted above. The article's references clearly specify which page(s) within the pdfs the memos are found on. No one is asking readers to read articles random articles they may not be interested in. But I think we are entitled to have those who nominate or comment on articles that have been nominated for discussion to read them with sufficient care that they don't make unsupportable claims about what those article contain.

If it weren't a red herring, I might read it more carefully. But his school attendance has no connection to his notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As DGG pointed out about a similar article: "The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern." I can't see any Guantanamo Bay detainees being non-notable. The arrticles may have other failings, but I don't think they should be deleted on these grounds. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How the Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides for the due process of its prisoners is a matter of international concern, and that is why the detention camp is notable. The issue here is wheter each and every prisoner is notable or not. And the question that has to be answered it whether there's substantial coverage of the subject of the bio. I also think that that the issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are a matter of international concern but that has nothing to do with each prisoner. This article is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." however this article is focused (well or badly) completely on its subject. It doesn't discuss Guantanamo Bay in general. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject" no matter how much it focuses on its subject. The creator, in previos afd's, repeatedly states that the importance of the lack of due process that Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides to prisoners is the reason for the non-deletion of the article. It doesn't get anymore WP:COATRACK then that. Indeed, your reason for non-deletion pretty much says the same. There is a confusion with an important issue and people that are pawns in an important issue. The former is notable, not the latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator's assertions about WP:BIO misquote the guideline. Nomination states: "...This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage..." -- the nomination claims WP:BIO requires "substantial coverage". What WP:BIO actually says is:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The WP:BIO guideline says nothing about a requirement for "substantial media coverage". I urge anyone who thinks it does to go back and re-read it for themselves.

Some challengers have stated that the OARDEC documents such as those this article uses are unsatisfactory sources, because they are merely "primary sources", not "secondary sources". I took a closer look at the definitions, and it seemed to me these sources are secondary sources. These documents were drafted from multiple sources, by an independent agency. So I posted queries on WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"? I encourage anyone who doubts the sources comply with policy and WP:BIO to take a look at those discussion.

Note: I politely asked the nominator to review those discussion back on March 7 2008 -- when they initially {{prod}}ded this article. I am very sorry that I have to report that the nominator proved unwilling or unable to offer any kind of reply whatsoever. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This box sits right on top of the WP:BIO page:

(emphasis added) significant (in other words "substantial", but significant is actually a higher standard) coverage is actually the most important factor of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Noone here is arguing about the reliability of the sources, that's merely a confusion of the issues. There is one issue - and one issue only - is this person notable or not. Nothing so far has shown that he has any notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article cites only primary sources, with no secondary sources to establish news coverage of this individual. Almost all Google hits for him are from Wikipedia itself, and there are no Google News or Google News Archive hits I could find. The fact that he is held at the notable Guantanamo Bay detention camp does not establish that he himself is notable per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my comments above. Please see discussions at [1],[2]. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability isn't established, toss his name on a list article if you want but not deserving of of his own article. -Jahnx (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, and that's all that counts. If he has received no individual media attention (most likely because they also have no other information), Wikipedia shouldn't have an individual article either. --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see above. I believe your comment is based on a misinterprtation of what WP:BIO states. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Significant coverage is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:BIO. Why give the detainees more coverage than they deserve? ArcAngel (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• A closer look at the link provided reveals that, to the contrary, it is a basis for deletion. They are merely lists of detainees, and are a far cry from substantial coverage that is required by WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: As above the preceding comment mischaracterizes what the WP:BIO guideline recommends. Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Significant coverage is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. The above ghits link does not establish notability as each hit is in fact simply a name on the list ( the subject of the article only appears on lists of prisoners). In other words, there is no independent coverage where this person is the subject of the article. Fails WP:BIO and I also see merit in Brewcrewer's argument for WP:COAT. BWH76 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia isn't paper and has no size constraints WP:NOT#PAPER. So all detainees (even those committing shockingly evil acts) can and are notable, even as individuals. In the same way, I would argue that everyone on Schindler's list is notable on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Using WP:NOT#PAPER is a basis for the non-deletion is a misapplication of Wikipedia policy. According to your logic, what the point of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion?
• Another thing that you are confusing is that the basis for the deletion is that they are bad people. That is flat-out wrong. To the contrary, those that "committed shockingly evil acts" have a better basis for inclusion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I've just drastically re-written the lead information on this detainee, at this point. I feel this improves the article and helps establish his notability. I believe that if the original author also uploads the transcripts for the subject's ARB and CSRT proceedings to s:Wikisource:Guantanamo, then this will make it a clear-cut "keep" case, rather than the debated status it currently has. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)