Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (default to keep, no BLP issues). Guantanamo inmates aren't automatically notable - of course not - but this one does appear to have enough coverage to scrape through WP:BIO. I believe GeoSwan makes reasonable points here. Black Kite 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami

[edit]
Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While this is a well-written article with a lot of citations, the main summary is that he exists and is held at Guantanamo Bay. Nothing in the article suggests that he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, almost everything in his article suggests that he meets WP:BIO, he is "the worst of the worst" according to the American Vice President, he claims to have been tortured at a CIA black site, still held as a terrorist at Gitmo he likely faces the death penalty as punishment for alleged war crimes...I'd say any notation that he's "not notable" would have to pass a very high standard of evidence. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, we get he's held at GITMO, but "why" is he notable? What's he done that's notable? I think a strong case has been made for deletion at this point.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this comment is based on a serious misconception. While many of our articles are about individuals who have done something, other articles, like that of Alfred Dreyfus or Rodney King concern individuals who had something done to them. Implied in various challengers' comments here is the idea that what has happened to al Hami was obviously routine, mundane, totally precedented, unremarkable. During the late Twentieth Century, and early in this Twenty-first Century a very large number of individuals have been held, secretly, without charge, without a meaningful opportunity to learn why they were being held, without a meaningful opportunity to challenge whatever allegations had been leveled against them, in detention camps where brutality was authorized. If we include Stalin and Mao's Gulags maybe there were as many as 100,000,000 captives held under those conditions. But, if so, 99,999,000 or 99,998,000 of those individuals were held by rigid, brutal, repressive, totalitarian regimes. Dog bites man is unremarkable. Dogs do bite men, occasionally. Man bites dog is much more remarkable. I suggest that captives held by the USA -- once thought to be the archetype of a freedom-loving democracy -- under the conditions usual in a totalitarian despotism -- is highly remarkable. Does this make Al Hami as remarkable as Alfred Dreyfus, whose case is still being debated 100 years later? Unlikely. But who knows -- wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He is remarkable enough that he should be covered here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the sources do anything to establish notability. In fact, five of the six sources are just primary sources relating to the subject's detention and its review. Having one's detention reviewed is not a sign of notability for a Guantanamo prisoner because every prisoner in Guantanamo has had his status reviewed unless he was released first. The only secondary source used (the article from The Wire) does not even mention the subject. I can't find any evidence that Dick Cheney called Rafiq Al Hami "the worst of the worst", as opposed to calling the Guantanamo prisoners in general "the worst of the worst"; saying that Al Hami personally is "the worst of the worst" would be an example of the Fallacy of division. His claims to have been tortured are just that, claims, and do not have appeared to have received significant news coverage in the United States, his home country of Tunisia, or any other country on earth. (At least, no such coverage has been cited yet.) The factors favoring continued detention -- that is, the factors offered by the U.S. government as a reason to detain him -- don't suggest to me that he would be likely to be sentenced to death for war crimes. Finally, my own search for news coverage of him turned up nothing more significant than a single sentence in an article from Ansa.it: "Un tenue legame con l'Italia esiste anche per un settimo detenuto, Rafiq bin Bashir bin Al Hami, che aveva con se', al momento dell'arresto in Pakistan, un passaporto italiano contraffatto con un visto pachistano, a suo dire acquistato anni fa in Europa per 200 marchi tedeschi." [1] (My translation: A tenuous link with Italy exists also for a seventh detainee, Rafiq bin Bashir bin Al Hami, who had with him at the moment of his arrest in Pakistan a fake Italian passport with a Pakistani visa, which he said he had acquired a year earlier in Europe for 200 German marks.) Please keep any discussion of this AfD here; in the past, AfD discussions for other Guantanamo prisoners have been taken to my talk page, but I'd rather cover it all here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you're searching with only Wikipedia's transliteration of his Arabic name. You'll see he's mentioned on National Public Radio, BergenGrassroots, The Financial Times, New York Times, TalkLeft, and a number of others. They range from mere mentions of his name, to actual articles discussing how his case epitomises the problem with the United States having employed Bounty Hunters to track down "suspects", and bringing them people like al-Hami. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails notability. He's mentioned in passing as a detainee, but what has he done that makes him notable?Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the requirement for secondary sources... well, normally, any document which is a compilation, interpretation, or analysis of original sources is recognized as a secondary source. I agree that a transcript of an OARDEC administrative proceeding would be a primary source. The authors of the Summary of Evidence memos, that list the allegations used to justify continuing to detain al Hami, wrote those memos after compiling, synthesizing, interpreting and analyzing reports from multiple civilian and military agencies. It seems to me that this makes those documents secondary sources. I have been told that a different definition of primary source and secondary source should be used when the sources relate to Guantanamo captives. If there is anyone out there who can explain why this should be so, I would appreciate them spelling this out here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to press coverage of his claims of torture -- I don't believe our policies require coverage in the press. Some important topics will never have press coverage. Please note that while we may not be able to find Press coverage of Al Hami's reports of torture, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler took the claim seriously enough to issue an order that all remaining evidence that would substantiate the claims be preserved. Is there some reason you don't regard this as a reliable source -- not a source that confirms he was tortured, but that someone in a position of authority took the claim seriously? She took it seriously, and so should our coverage of the issue. Geo Swan (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Milgaard is only notable for one event, as is Lee Harvey Oswald, as is William Calley -- BLP1E refers to "a motorist who ran over a child in Essex in 1994", not to alleged terrorists held in illegal gulags. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one bio in WP whose subject's only claim to notability is that he or she was held illegally in a gulag or even a concentration camp. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT to the coatrack essay -- it makes some interesting points... but it is a mistake to treat it as a policy, or guideline, when it is neither. The essay does not recommend a nomination for deletion as a first response. It mentions deletion as a last resort, when attempts at civil discussion fail. I suggest that anyone who claims the authority of the coatrack essay as justification for deletion is showing they have not read the essay closely enough to recognize it is not a policy, and to recognize it does not recommend deletion as the appropriate reaction to concerns over the issues it raises. A look at Talk:Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami shows no concerns over this article were ever expressed on its talk page. I've encountered challengers who have challenged material similar to this claiming the authority of coatrack as their justification. It has always seemed to me that it should be a simple matter for those claiming the authority of coatrack to be specific about which section(s) of the essay they thought applied. I am sorry to report I can not remember ever encountering a challenger who claimed the authority of coatrack who was willing to be specific about which section of the essay they thought applied. And let me amplify that real compliance with the essay's advice would require the challenger to try to get their concern addressed through civil discussion on the article's talk page first. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 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. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I have undone my closure of this AfD following this message on my talk.  Sandstein  10:23, 28 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, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not too sure how many Guantanamo detainees have their articles on WP. WP is surely not the place to cover all inmates from all illegal camps in the world. However, the topic "Inmate in Guantanamo" is surely notable and encyclopaedic. As argued for in Anil's Ghost, it is difficult to give visibility to numbers; often, it is a better solution to pick one exemplary case to illustrate the topic. RBBBJAH could be such a case, but the article might be moved/merged to another article, like Biographies of Guantanamo prisoners or sth like that, with an eye on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of course. Given that the article is rather well-sourced and written for such a difficult topic, I would favour preserving the content in one way or another, on this page or on another page.Jasy jatere (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rafiq_Bin_Bashir_Bin_Jalud_Al_Hami&oldid=1074049007"