Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)

Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)

Is this a biographical article? It looks more like a WP:COATRACK to me. Either way, the article also fails as the person is only notable for one event anyhow (WP:BLP1E). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – Actually, it appears that this person is not even notable for one event; none of the secondary sources I saw listed in the article mentioned him by name, only the OARDEC documentation of his detention and trial, which I would consider a primary source, mentions him. If it turns out that his detention in specific is mentioned in secondary sources, then it would be reasonable to keep this article, as it is more an article about the event (his detention) than the person. But as of now, there is no notability established here. — λ (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Although Guantanomo Bay detainee camp is notable, it doesn't mean that every one of the 800+ detainees are notable. Notability is not inhereted. There's no evidence that this person has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, therefore falling far short of meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lambda -- definite WP:COATRACK problem, and besides the subject is not as notable as the article purports to be. Xihr (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've previously suggested that the editors documenting the detainees (and all the lawyers and tribunal judges and such) could start a Wikia to do so without notability limitations. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Lambda and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. Salaam is in substantially the same situation as Ajam -- the independent sources used in his Wikipedia article don't mention him at all, meaning that the article is really sourced only to documents relating to his detention and its review, which can't establish notability. A Google search was unsuccessful because "Abdul Salaam" is a common name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article.

I disagree that this article is a violation of BLP1E.

• Captured in a routine sweep of his local bazaar in May 2002.
• Sent to Guantanamo in October 2002.
• Faced the very last of the 558 CSR Tribunals in January 2005, where he was accused of transferring funds for al Qaeda.
• During his first annual Review Board he faced only four factors justifying his detention. This is very unusual -- unlike what other captives experienced. Practically every other captive faced more allegations during their annual reviews than they did during their initial CSR Tribunal. Most faced at least twice as many allegations. One captive faced six times as many allegations second time around.

Please bear in mind that the Guantanamo captives were described as "the worst of the worst", and various similar description, by senior cabinet members of DoD officials. I suggest that anyone, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who almost everyone will agree is one of "the worst of the worst" merits coverage here.

And, I suggest that other captives, who faced allegations justifying their detention that may not clearly establish they were "the worst of the worst" also merit coverage. I don't think it is our role, as wikipedia contributors, to decide whether the allegations are credible for our readers. I think our readers are entitled to reach their own conclusions about the credibility of the allegations, and to reach their own conclusion as to whether those allegations really support descriptions like "the worst of the worst".

Some commentators above have made comments that suggest they may not understand that there are multiple separate, independent agencies here. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), set up in early 2002, was responsible for the captive's interrogation, detention, medical care, mail from home. The Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC), set up in July 2004, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush, had the responsibility of formally confirming earlier secret determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants". Part of OARDEC's responsibilities was to independently review the evidence against each captive, and prepare "Summary of Evidence" memos, for the officers charged with making the recommendation. And in doing so they reviewed reports prepared by the CIA, FBI, CITF and the office of DASD-DA. It is my opinion that this fully satisfies the policy requirements that sources be "independent secondary sources". I know some people think they don't satisfy the requirements because they are not "media sources". But this is a misconception. The policies don't require sources be "media sources".

WRT WP:COATRACK -- it lists about a dozen different criteria. I've reviewed its recommendations recently, and I can't honestly see that this article lapses from any of those criteria. One of the criteria in COATRACK talks about "wongo juice" -- the article that is nominally about one thing, but quickly diverges, and spends most of its bytes talking about some other topic, which the COATRACK author called "wongo juice". Now, if this article were to diverge from talking about Abdul Salaam, and spent most of its bytes talking about Guantanamo detention, in general, then Guantanamo detention would be the "wongo juice". But I don't believe this article does this. Yes, there is material in this article that is similar to other articles. But, I regard that material as necessary context. You will find other related sets of articles, like the articles on the chemical elements, also have material in common. It would be possible to strip out all common material from the articles on the chemical elements -- at the cost of leaving them essentially useless for anyone who didn't already have a PhD in chemistry.

WRT WP:NOTINHERITED -- I believe this challenge is based on a misconception. Challenger acknowledged the Guantanamo camp is notable. And, similarly, San Quentin, Devil's Island and Leavenworth are notable. There are differences between the captives in those other facilities and the Guantanamo captives. (1) The captives in those other famous facilities have not had Cabinet members repeatedly label them as "the worst of the worst", "very bad men", and "terrorists"; (2) Captives ended up in those other facilities through the normal, routine, well-established, well-understood procedures of a criminal justice system -- one with established rules of evidence and established rules of procedure. When there is something unprecedented about a captive in one of those other facilities, we have an article about him or her. And, when there is something outside of the routine about one of the captives in one of those other facilities, we cover them. The USA imprisons thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals charged with, or convicted of murder. And we have articles about practically none of them. But we have articles on guys who stand out, like Willie Horton or Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. I've written about this further, here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further to COATRACK -- this document doesn't, generally, recommend deletion as the answer to a perception of COATRACK. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability as demonstrated by the lack of coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications. RFerreira (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate an explanation of this phrase: "...coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications." I thought I was familiar with the relevant policies. I don't recognize this phrase. If it is from an existing policy I would be very grateful to have that passage drawn to my attention. My google search doesn't find the phrase "multiple and non-trivial independent publications"' anywhere on the project. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No reason to Google the phrase. This little box sits on the top of the WP:BIO policy page:---brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)