Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →[[Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar]]: what makes GITMO detainees notable? |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) |
::How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:50, 24 September 2005
Not a notabile person. Article on Guantanamo Bay lists 520 detainees. No reason is given why this individual merits his own article. Brandon39 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Jwissick 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (see AfDs above) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Brandon's view is that not all the Guantanamo detainees are notable. I've kept my ears open for places where one can download the documents arising from the detainee's Combatant Status Review Tribunal. I've found approximately three dozen documents. I've started going through them. I think they are noteworthy. They reveal what I regard as noteworthy flaws in procedure and discrepancies. Note: I have added to the article since Brandon put his notice on it.-- Geo Swan 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while one or two articles are interesting, 520 would just be in order to make a WP:POINT. Without some reason to assert that this detainee is more important than the 519 others, there is no reason to prefer this one. If we just have one article listing the detainees this would account for the noteworthiness while also not leading to an unnecessary proliferation of articles. (Or more likely a biased collection of 10 taken more or less at random) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- The United States has been very secretive about who the detainees are, how they came to be captured, what they are accused of, and how much of the evidence against them is classified, and thus unchallengable. Some of the documents make for fascinating reading. So, I think that makes the detainees where the records are public notable. A single article that had a section about each detainee would grow unmanageably long. As the details about the detainees leak out I think we will find that a significatn number of the detainees merit lengthy discussion. -- Geo Swan 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while one or two articles are interesting, 520 would just be in order to make a WP:POINT. Without some reason to assert that this detainee is more important than the 519 others, there is no reason to prefer this one. If we just have one article listing the detainees this would account for the noteworthiness while also not leading to an unnecessary proliferation of articles. (Or more likely a biased collection of 10 taken more or less at random) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non notable prisoner. Please explain how he is any more notable than any other prisoner in any other prison in the world. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- Geo Swan 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- How are Guantanamo detainees more notable than any other person in the World? That's easy! There is a great controversy over how the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Surely you have noticed? The Bush administration has described them as "the worst of the worst". The Bush administration has also been very circumspect about their details. The combatant status review documents that I came across, and on which this article, and a few others, are based will give interested readers a better chance to make up their own minds as to whether the detainees can fairly be described as the worst of the worst. -- Geo Swan 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)