Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i

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 on a

Votes for Undeletion

nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). There were suggestions to merge this with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Redirecting this page there might be an option, but after reviewing that article, I have found that it does not accomodate biographies like this article, but only the names and some vestigial info. Therefore I will let the article stay and not merge it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i

NN ≈ jossi ≈

One of the noteworthy things about Alawi is the role volunteering for, and being employed by, two charities the USA has classified as tied to al Qaeda, appears to have played in his classification as an illegal combatant. I created an article about one of those charities,

Al Wafa. I mention Alawi on that page, and link to his article. There is something strange about this. Al Wafa's headquarters are in Israel. It is hard to understand that Israel's security services would allow a charity based in Israel to be tied to al Qaeda. -- Geo Swan 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Non-notable. However, having a page that lists the detainees in
  Camp Delta would be more acceptable. Individually they don't (usually) merit a separate article, especially when there's nothing beyond nationality by way of content. Also, is there a source for the information that this individual is detained? --Plumbago 15:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees or equivalent if possible, otherwise delete. By the way, jossi, consensus on the mailing list seems to be that nominations need more than just an abbreviation or two. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Plumbago's reasoning.
• Delete Jwissick 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with and redirect to
  Talk 17:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to list as above. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Alawi merits an article because few Guantamo detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunal records can be downloaded. -- Geo Swan 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Do not create
  List of Guantanamo detainees, that would be no more notable than List of prisoners in San Quentin. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Regardless of whether such a list is worthwhile, I don't agree with your comparison. San Quentin is a perfectly ordinary prison, with criminals within. Guantanamo Bay is not the same sort of prison — it's used for terrorists, prisoners of war, and political prisoners. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So should we have a list of every political prisoner in the world? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geo Swan. In response to Zoe, yes.
  Chick Bowen 22:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Further to my original "Delete", Geo Swan has expanded the original article. However, if the expansion material is available online anyway (it seems to be a straight lift), why not stick with my suggestion (an article with a list all known GITMO detainees) and link to this information rather than simply reproduce it? --Plumbago 12:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You ask "why not have a single article with links to the source documents, and let the readers follow the links themselves? Because it is not just a "straight lift". The documents are in portable document format. They are hard to read. Each .pdf consist of about a dozen different documents. The documents within the pdf are not all in the same order in all the detainees dossiers. But they look similar enough you have to actually scan them. So, you have to do a visual grep of something like a dozen pages.
• In short it is a lot of work to find the allegations within the pdf. Go ahead. Look at the pdf yourself. Could you locate the allegation portion in less than two minutes? And you know what you are looking for. So, not a "straight lift". -- Geo Swan 00:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies Geo Swan. My bad - I didn't follow the link to the PDF. --Plumbago 10:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not merge, per User:Zoe. Groeck 16:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Anne Frank was just a girl - but history records what she said about her time spent hiding in an annex. I agree the articles should be expanded to fit perhaps a more biographical tone if such information can be found, but it seems odd to class an entire 'enemy' as not allowed to have articles on their individual soldiers, look at Georg Konrad Morgen, he was 'just some Nazi', but we detail what he did during the war. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider notability a requirement[1]. An excerpt would read Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied - and then also mentions this doesn't apply to vanity/wikimemorial articles. Sherurcij 17:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above. -
  Hahnchen 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]