Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharifullah (detainee)

:{{la|Sharifullah (detainee)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sharifullah (detainee)}})

Subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is not notable under the general notability guideline. The bulk of the references used appear to be primary documents per WP:PRIMARY and the article makes a number of claims about a living individual and as such has WP:BLP issues. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Misuse of primary sources in a BLP that presents the individual in a false negative light while secondary sources (here one [http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/12/23/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo/] [http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/the-guantanamo-files-website-extras-12-the-last-of-the-afghans-part-two/]) show that he is an innocent man that help the US and Hamid Karzai fight terrorists. In addition delete per general notability guideline as there is only one reliable secondary source that writes about him. IQinn (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, and edit to stub - Subject is notable, even with limited news coverage containing his name; reference 8 has his name and date of release. However, the use of primary sources in this fashion, although seemingly just a laying out of the facts, makes the bulk of the info POV, in that it is told, through these documents, from the US government's point of view. It is therefore not surprising, for instance, that there is no document stating clearly how Sharifullah was treated during the 6 years he was illegally (according to international law that the US has previously aggreed to) held, nor is it surprising not to find a news story about it. How could someone write a full ariticle when the information is classified? On the other hand, basic information about his arrest and release, with a more neutral context could present a solid stub. How are other prisoners of the camp being treated on Wikipedia, is there a project working on this? I'm going to take a few minutes right now to look for other solid secondary sources. If I find them, I'll add them, and comment here. Nihola (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Merely having ones name mentioned and a date of release does not constitute "significant independent coverage", the threshold which must be passed to established notability. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and IQinn. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Here are a few more secondary sources. If the page stays, I'm happy to work on it with others. Nihola (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-20-guantanamo-transfers_N.htm

http://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/guantanamo-bay-beyond-the-laws-reach

http://www.zcommunications.org/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo-by-andy-worthington

• The Zcommunications.org article appears to be the same thing as [http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/12/23/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo/ this article] which is already being used as an external link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Do you consider the other two sources acceptable? DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Zcommunication is just a copy of Andy Worthington the only sources that covers him in detail. The other two do not provide a lot of information so i would would say that this does not add up to "significant coverage" needed for pass WP:GNG. In any way i stub the article now to get rid of the BLP violations while GNG can be further discussed. IQinn (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Per the nom and IQinn, the subject fails GNG and BLP. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.

  1. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-20-guantanamo-transfers_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-20-guantanamo-transfers_N.htm] – Sharifullah is mentioned in passing. ("The Justice Department identified those sent home as:
  • Afghans Abdul Hafiz, Sharifullah, Mohamed Rahim and Mohammed Hashim.")

  2. [http://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/guantanamo-bay-beyond-the-laws-reach http://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/guantanamo-bay-beyond-the-laws-reach] – this is not a neutral secondary source. The page states: "The event will raise funds for Sharifullah’s and other detainees’ defense."

  3. [http://www.zcommunications.org/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo-by-andy-worthington http://www.zcommunications.org/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo-by-andy-worthington] – this article is not a neutral source. The article states: "For now, however, I’d like to turn to the four Afghans transferred to the custody of the Afghan government, because, in contrast to the fearmongering of opportunistic Republicans, who continue to claim that Guantánamo is full of terrorists, the stories of these four men demonstrate instead the incompetence of senior officials in the Bush administration ..."

  My own searches for sources in Google and Google News Archive have not returned suitable sources. I am not supporting a redirect because Sharifullah (detainee) is an unlikely search term. Cunard (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Primary sources are allowed as per WP:PRIMARY. There is no speculation being done here, which PRIMARY correctly notes as the concern (Original Research) with using primary sources. GNG etc are incorrect WP:CREEPs of the concerns in PRIMARY. Anarchangel (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

:Comment If you want to change core policies that might not be the right place here. Primary sources do not count towards notability as per WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep clearly notable for being an extra-judicial detainee of the U.S. government. Shame on Wikipedia if we insist on covering up such information. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:Comment - Shame on Wikipedia to have such a large amount (many hundreds) of crap articles about extra-judicial detainees. :) Article fails our basic notability guideline WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Kendrick7, if you are going to argue that the subject of this AfD is notable please state what policy you are basing this on. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Very little secondary sources. Fails WP:BLP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: it doesn't seem like there is enough coverage to warrant a stand alone article per WP:GNG. It is also a potential WP:BLP issue. Nevertheless, the subject could probably be mentioned in a parent article, so long as it was done in a way so as to not breach WP:UNDUE and so long as the sourcing is reliable. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

: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.