Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameen Mohammad Albkri

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Mohammad Albkri

This man does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The only thing approaching a claim of notability is that he sued President Bush (join the club). Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, while it was a stub, it has now grown into a larger stub with more context and details; his name seems to appear quite a bit in Yemeni and peninsular news sources - he's being held (presumably as a terrorist) by the United States in an illegal prison where he was made a ghost prisoner according to some sources, and subsequently sued the United States...I'd say he hits notability benchmarks. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular section of WP:BIO you'd like to point to to back that up? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is he notable? What has he done that's notable? Lot's of people who are involved in auto accident sue the United States, for instance, yet it does not make them "notable". The rest of the page, like so many similar to it, acts as a record of legal proceedings and provides links to legal briefs, which is not encyclopedic. At this point it would probably be better to list the identity of detainees held at GITMO to be placed on one page so we can avoid the legal intricacies of their cases. This is not a legal docketing source.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just so we're clear, you'd say the same thing about all Guantanamo detainees with the exception of maybe five or six "super notable" ones plastered across the newspapers? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, the masterminds? Pretty much on target. Their actions make them notable, their status as detainees does not.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not everyone gets to be notable. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which part of WP:BIO he meets? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which part of WP:BIO Andre Dallaire meets? WP:BIO is not policy, it is a sadly-flawed and incomplete attempt to list what specific editors think makes a "good" article. It is subjective, and simply says "In the field of chemistry, this is what we consider notable, in the field of Football, this is what we consider notable". Please don't make a false appeal to authority by claiming articles need to match some random and invisible benchmark set up by a few users anxious to overinflate their own importance by trying to categorise what makes a "good" biographical article. I could just as easily walk around AFDs demanding "Please explain how you think this article deserves to be kept based on User:Sherurcij/ListOfArticlesThatPissMeOff. There's almost zero validity to our current WP:BIO, which is just made to look important by a bunch of users such as yourself throwing it around heftily. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing André Dallaire out to me; I've nominated that for deletion. WP:WAX aside, my question stands. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would merge and redirect. I don't think this individual is notable enough for stand alone article. An article on those held would be better in my opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Continued incarceration and the controversy surrounding it is notability enough. I find the protestations of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E unconvincing and unwarranted: editors need to look at the clearly at why this subject is notable, and will see it is not for one event, but a series of related events. Which for example, is the case with Lee Harvey Oswald, who is notable not only for killing JFK, but for being killed himself, and for being the focus of much subsequent conspiranoia and investigation. Furthermore, WP:BIO is invalid in my eyes, because it contradicts at times what WP:N says, in particular regarding using sources and verifiability rather than subjective opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And lo and behold, Lee Harvey Oswald bears references to non-trivial coverage in eighteen books, meeting WP:GNG. Ameen Mohammad Albkri, on the other hand, does not. WP:BIO and WP:N enjoy wide acceptance among the Wikipedia community; if you feel that it is invalid or contradictory, please gather a consensus to change it at WT:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not greys but black and white. You can have one source and one verfication or you can have 1,000, notability is proven either way. The sources this article sites barely meet WP:BIO but they meet, and definitely meet WP:NOTE - they are verified with multiple media sources, and are supported int heir assertions with reliable primary and secondary source material. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Article has grown, been sourced properly and has notability for WP:BIO. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, and notable because of the issue. NoVomit (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant figure in historical events, well sourced. Many of the individual people here have individual notability because of the separate legal proceedings. This is a matter of permanent international interest, not well covered by the press initially, but by now there is sufficient material. Will be further notable; there in addition is very likely to already be material in languages not easily accessible to us. I think this is clear, but for those who think this is borderline, we resolve situations in favor of notability in the presence of strong cultural bias, This is different from situations like the Virginia Tech or the WTC victims, who most of them after the event had only memorials written. The subsequent legal actions here make him notable, not just being captured. DGG (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I did some more research on Ameen Mohammad Albkri since this nomination. He was someone I couldn't originally tie to anyone on the official lists of captives. But, recently, new sources have come to light, and I am now pretty sure that the Ameen Mohammad Albkri is merely a different transliteration of Abdul Hakim Bukhary. Normally, I would just merge the two articles. I won't do that now -- while the article is under discussion for deletion. Abdul Hakim Bukhary is a Saudi who fought against Afghanistan's Soviet invaders in the 1980s, back when that made him an ally of the CIA. He returned to Afghanistan sometime in 2001, and promptly said something that made the Taliban believe he was a US spy. He made positive comments about Ahmed Shah Massoud, who had been a widely admired mujahideen leader during the resistance against the Soviets when he was in Afghanistan in the 1980s, without realizing that in 2001 Massoud was the Taliban's number one enemy. Bukhary said he made this comment before the US invasion, and was promptly imprisoned, and beaten by the Taliban. There were about half a dozen captives of the Taliban who were in same position as Bukhary, held under brutal conditions by Taliban, set loose from the Taliban prison by the Northern Alliance, held briefly under very loose and lenient conditions in a refugee camp, where, they report,they were interviewed by the BBC and other western news agencies, where they expressed their gratitude that the invasion had set them free -- only to find themselves not set free, after all, but to be bundled up, and transferred to Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I stand open to correction, but I think that closing this discussion as merge to Abdul Hakim Bukhary makes the most sense. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are now saying the subject does not exist, but is in actuality another person entirely on a bad name, then deletion is appropriate, the issue of notability is thereby moot, and the above arguments are obviated. One can only assume that the other individual listed has all of the information required, and actually exists. No merge is necessary.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources about this individual in the other article, under his other name, and we have a source about him here, in this article. Merge and redirection is done all the time. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they definitely don't seem to be the same person, one is a Saudi veteran who's lived in Afghanistan for ~20 years, the other is a Yemeni shrimp merchant who doesn't appear to have ever gone to Afghanistan until American captors flew him there. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:49, 1 January 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.