Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman

Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Subject fails notability citeria Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Notability established by: [1] and [2], and [3]... as well as the other sources listed on the article page. There is no reason to assume this individual will become less notable, as this landmark
  Guantanamo Bay case goes forward. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 08:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep The subject is plainly and uncontroversially notable as a named prisoner of Guantanamo who is contesting the charges against him. No idea why the nominator feels the subject is not notable: since there is sourced material from reliable sources, plus verification from primary sources, simply asserting non-notability doesn't cut it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this is one of the Guantanamo articles being worked on by
  OARDEC (21 September 2006). "Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Al Rahim, Uthman H" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. pp. pages 30-33. Retrieved 2008-05-15.CSRT Allegations against Uthman, p. 24-25, CSRT transcript of Uthman, p. 112-114Habeas petition of Uthman, p. 21-44, ARB Allegations against Uthman, p. 19-21 and Revised ARB allegations against Uthman, p. 30-33. In addition, going through a series of texts by Andy Worthington, Erik Saar, Moazzam Begg and others which mention specific stories of detainees like Uthman, but lack helpful appendices that make "quick, immediate referencing" difficult. As the de facto leader of the Wikiproject focused on improving these articles (and Wikipedia's articles on detainees are actually used and occasionally cited by major news outlets), I have to say that the piecemeal nominations once a week suggesting one or two random Guantanamo detainees be deleted are in bad faith, after numerous discussions, votes and policies were decided in favour of keeping the articles. Simply suggesting a different genus of animal be proposed for deletion every week as an "unnotable distinction in the animal kingdom" would eventually manage to get random genuses deleted through poorly-managed straw polls...but would irreparably harm the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to build a working database of information on notable subjects such as Uthman, and for what? The sake of politicking by a couple of specific Wikipedia users who hold a grudge or political motivation to want to see a random 5% of information deleted each week for their own ends? Wikiproject Terrorism users start working on cleaning up Abdullah's article, ProblemUser1 nominates Abdurahman for deletion instead, project members move to clean up Abdurahman, ProblemUser1 nominates Ahmed for deletion instead - it's a game of hot potato, except the only loser is Wikipedia. For the love of the project, above petty personal grievances, I would implore the "same small handful of "ProblemUser"s to stop this ridiculous farce. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  My jaw just dropped. This is like the BEST AfD response ever! EVER, I SAID!!! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Those documents don't seem to prove more than that he exists and is accused of ... stuff.

  talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep, probably a bad faith nomination and a
  WP:SNOW keep.  LinguistAtLarge  10:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Erm, I know we together and all that, but you know, we have this thing, erm, called, "

WP:DRAMA around here would go away if we all kept to ourselves what we think of each other, and concentrated on content. I know its hard, I do it all the time. But darn! Wouldn't it be pretty if we didn't? Besides, have mercy, why throw salt on the wound? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Technically we also have Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, which means it's fair to assume that both Linguist and I (who both mentioned this nomination borders on "bad faith") have considered and assumed the chance that Yachtsman is acting in good faith, but have found the "strong evidence" necessary to actually rationally and without malice, put forward the suggestion that together with two other specific users, are acting in bad faith with the mentality of "throw enough at the wall, and some of it is bound to be deleted". But mostly I just like pointing Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then would our cunning Linguist be so kind as to explain on which basis he doesn't assume good faith, if that is the case? Inquiring minds stand at the ready... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the earliest edit recorded in the contribution history of the Yachtsman1 wiki-id.

"Geoswan is a contributor on Wikepedia whose main emphasis is to endanger members of the United States military and their families by plastering their names and images on the web when they work in highly volatile situations in the War on Terror."

Yachtsman1 went on to leave notes like this one about other articles I started on other contributors talk pages.

I responded here.

Yachtsman1 has not left an explicit attack on my character anywhere in public in several months. But he has also never offered even a hint of an apology for his earlier comments.

I started the article on

Mohammed al-Asadi

, another Guantanamo captive the Yachtsman1 wiki-id nominated for deletion today.

So, when am I entitled to relax, and quit straining my ability to assume good faith on his part? When does the point come when I am free to openly consider the possibility that the individual or individuals behind this wiki-id is targeting my contributions in particular, in a manner that does not comply with the wikipedia's civility policies and the provision in

wikipedia is not a battlefield? Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I did apologize on another AFD, and that was over three thousand edits and three months ago. As for your other comments, I ask you in all earnestness, who is making this a battlefield, and who is engaging in personal attacks at this point GeoSwan?Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you apologized? Possibly you are mistaken, and merely thought about apologizing? Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backpeddling is unbecoming, Geoswan. As for the thread, any defense of the article yet, or will this drama continue? Why is this subject notable, GeoSwan.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - we've been here before. My feeling is that all of these Guantanamo Bay detainees are inherently notable. We ought to have a policy specifically for them and everyone should abide by it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming that at least some of the prisoners didn't do anything wrong, I doubt all of them qualify as notable since most innocent people could only be described briefly without any real encyclopedic content. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If any of these prisoners has not done anything wrong and is being imprisoned without trial for being a 'terrorist', in the year 2008 and by the world's only superpower, then that only adds to the notability so far as I'm concerned. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per several comments above. --
  Knowzilla 19:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- No serious justification offered for deletion. No attempt made by nominator to voice his concerns on the article's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per
  WP:BIO. Zero independent sources are provided within the article itself. The New York Times citation in the article is not to an article about the subject, just to a reprint on the NYT web site of primary sources relating to the administrative proceedings about his detention and combatant status review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No offense, but the opinion stated above requires using a different definition of primary source here than we use for every other kind of topic. For every other topic, when an author has summarized, interpreted, synthesized, and analyzed earlier documents we regard their work as a secondary source. I suggest we use that definition of secondary source here. And, using that definition, the summary of evidence memos that contain the allegations against Uthman, clearly fulfill the requirement for secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone tried to portray a judge's written opinion in a legal case as a secondary source to establish notability, on the grounds that the opinion was based on summarizing, interpreting, synthesizing, and analyzing the evidence (including documents) in the case, I don't think we would consider that a secondary source. More likely we would consider the judge's opinion a primary source, and look for secondary sources among newspapers, magazines, etc. Similarly, all the documents from the legal, administrative or review proceedings that the subject was involved in should be considered primary sources, at least for the purpose of establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, though I nominated this article, I thought I would make my vote crystal clear. Being a detainee at GITMO makes one no more notable than being a prisoner at any other prison. You need better grounds than that. The above-comments, I leave unchanged, though they violate
  WP:CIV. They serve as a steady reminder of the cost of dissent.Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've struck your "strong delete" as it may give the impression that there is more support than there is for deletion of this article. Nominating implies that you want it deleted.
    talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am frankly mystified by Yachtsman1's comment above. Yachtsman1 asserts on his user page, and elsewhere, that he is a lawyer. Yet in his comment above he seems to fail to recognize a meaningful distinction between prisoners who were convicted of a crime, at a trial, where they had a fair chance to challenge the evidence against them, and Uthman, who is detained on secret evidence, who never had a trial, and never had a meaningful chance to challenge the evidence against him. Guantanamo is definitely not a prison like other prisons. It is official US policy that it is not a "prison". It is also official US policy that it is not a POW camp -- because it is official US policy that the captives are not POWs. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I leave it to you to make distinctions that mean nothing in terms of their application, Geoswan. I fail to see the significance on notability because one set of prisoners who are not detainees are tried under criminal process in a court of law, while others are tried administratively under military law. In either case, they are afforded due process based on their status, your attempt to differentiate notability on that basis alone notwithstanding. Your
      WP:POV commentary is also duly noted. I, on the other hand, remain mystified when I will actually see an argument on why the subject is "notable". Please let me know when that happens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yachtsman1 are you trying to assert here that Uthman was "tried administratively under military law". If so I suggest you are very extremely mistaken. When captives asked for lawyers the officers presiding over their Tribunals routinely informed them that they were not entitled to lawyers because they were not being tried. They were informed that the Tribunals were "administrative proceedings", not legal proceedings. Further, please explain how you could describe them as being under "military law". Weren't these administrative proceedings merely carried out according to memos from senior officials of the Bush Presidency? Isn't it a mistake to call that "being tried administratively under military law"? As for "due process", what could you possibly mean by that? The DoD has published the decision memos drafted by 179 of the Tribunals. In every case but one the decision to classify the individual as an "enemy combatant" was based on secret allegations that were withheld from the captive. Wasn't the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush a repudiation of the CSR Tribunal system, precisely because it was not a fair process? So, could you please explain what you mean by "due process"? Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and request closing admin to carefully consider which !votes relate to Wikipedia policy and which amount to "he's notable because I said so". Nothing whatsoever in this article comes near to meeting
  talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No offense, but the claim that this article does not measure up to the criteria in

WP:GNG

requires reading into those documents clauses that are simply not present. These documents do not state that press reports are the only documents that should be considered reliable sources. There are lots of important topics which are not based on press reports.

.The wikidocuments referred to above require that the sources be "independent of the subject". Uthman didn't write them, so they are independent of the subject.

.These wikidocuments require that the sources be reliable. For every other topic government sources are considered reliable sources. This does not mean that we accept that every governments' official documents are always truthful, or accurate. It means that we accept that official government documents reflect official government positions.

.These wikidocuments require that the sources "address the subject directly in detail". I don't believe there is any question that this criteria is met.

.For every other topic sources, which are based on the summary, interpretation, synthesis and analysis of earlier documents are recognized as being "secondary sources". Yet I find that challengers to articles like this routinely assert that the memos that summarize the allegations against captives like Uthman are merely primary sources, even though the authors of those memos were required to summarize, interpret sythesize and analyze earlier reports from multiple civilian and military agencies.

Writer above specifically requests the closing admin to carefully consider how the votes here relate to policy. I thought closing admins were supposed to do that for every {{

afd}}? Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• By this logic, wouldn't every prisoner convicted of a crime and held in prison be notable based on the existence of government documents relating to his prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment, which would be considered secondary sources by this argument? (I am not claiming that Uthman was convicted of a crime or held in a traditional prison, as per Geo Swan's comment at 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) above, just looking at where the argument of accepting government documents as secondary sources would take us.) I don't think that every prisoner convicted of a crime and held in prison is automatically notable, nor do I think that every detainee held at Guantanamo is automatically notable either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If I am not mistaken the USA has something like one million prisoners. And, as Metropolitan90 has pointed out, they have all had documents generated as they went through the US Justice system. Those million prisoners have had unexceptional documents generated about them. The US Justice system is well understood and predictable. And when those documents merely show the US Justice system is performing as designed, they are completely unexceptional. When the system appears to hiccup, and an individual appears to have been wrongly convicted, like
  Hurricane Carter, and the usual documents generated as his or her case made their way through the Justice system, back that up, then those are exceptional documents, and merit being cited here. Our nominator's position is that the Guantanamo system is as unexceptional, well understood, mundane, ordinary, unremarkable as when the US Justice system functions smoothly, and as unworthy of coverage here. But the Guantanamo system is not mundane, unremarkable. And the allegations Uthman faced were not mundane, unremarkable. Consider the allegations Uthman faced in 2004. Consider the first allegation -- he is alleged to have seen an assault rifle. Consider the fifth allegation -- he is alleged to have been "associated" with two suspects in the USS Cole bombing. Some captives questioned how they could defend themselves against the allegation they associated with a terrorist suspect, if they couldn't be told that suspect's name? Further, merely knowing a suspect doesn't make one guilty too. When I was a kid, one day, one of my neighbors, an outwardly normal family man, became a drunken hit-and-run driver. He ran over a child at a cross-walk. And his crime didn't rub off on me. If someone tried to pass these kinds of allegations through the US Justice system they would or should trigger the kind of hiccup that does merit coverage here -- just as these documents do. Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Editing problems with the article are dealt with my editing, Disagreements about how to do it are dealt with on the article talk page or at the project. The man is notable, as many of them are. . I see there are now sources in the native countries of the prisoners from outside the US thus removing the cultural bias of the articles and demonstrating international notability. I'm prepared to predict that over the next year as the facility closes, and for many years after that, yet additional sources will appear, including abundant ones on each individual: they will all have a story to tell. But AfD is not a referendum on Gitmo. DGG (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The issue is whether the subject passes

WP:BIO, that he is notable now, not whether he may become notable in the future.Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

as above, my meaning was notable now, yet more notable later. I don't think this is even borderline, but for those who do, the likelihood of further notability is a reasonable feature in borderline cases. DGG (talk)

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.