Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamil al Banna

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. Hermione1980 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil al Banna

nn ≈ jossi ≈ 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - Jossi, you tagged this article with Afd within one minute of my creating it. I'd like to invite you to volunteer a reason for its deletion. -- Geo Swan 02:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did: nn (non-notable). And by the way, this article is close to a speedy candidate for not asserting notability (
    talk 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Keep due to Vizjim's research. Makes me wonder, though: why is it that there's always more information in an AfD than there is in the actual article? --
      talk 15:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete - Being a prisoner isn't notable enough for me, no matter at which prison. If
  Hahnchen 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep - Although I haven't personally checked the facts, I'll assume they are correct and he is indeed one of the few notable prisoners there. When I originally voted, there was nothing to distinguish him from other prisoners. Nice work. -
    Hahnchen 17:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep. Jamil al Banna's case has been the cause of controversy (see [1]). The only redirect that would make sense would be to an article called something like
  Bisher al-Rawi. For this reason I would strongly favour having a separate page for each man, where details of their cases can be given. The legal case around the internment of these men is the touchstone for formulations of international law in the last four years, and will probably help to define the concept of international law for another decade or more. For that reason each individual case is highly notable and encyclopedic. I've expanded the article a little, and would expect that this expansion will continue with input from more legally-minded contributors. Vizjim 10:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Vizjim. Dlyons493 Talk 13:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vizjim; he is not just one of "hundreds of thousands" of refugees and prisoners.--Kewp 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic Keep', totally agree with the vizster. jamesgibbon 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, certainly notable. -Splash^talk 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Vizjim. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vizjim. Loganberry (Talk) 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vizjim. Mushroom 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 an

undeletion request

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