- 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 delete. Regretfully, we do not yet have sufficient information. No prejudice agains re-creation if more becomes available. DGG (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abdullah Shahab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I think this one is one is a WP:BLP1E. There is one newspaper reference in which it is saids that it is believed to be connected with terrorism. The link is not valid anymore. Moreover, what happens if he is not connected with terrorism afterall? I think this is against WP:BLP. Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nom. munkee_madness talk 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- what aspect of the nomination are you agreeing with? The nominator asks "what if he is not connected with terrorism afterall?" But the article doesn't say, never said that he was connected with terrorism. That he was reported to have been captured because he was believed to have a connection with terrorism is referenced, and will remain true, even if he is cleared of this allegation. I regard this nomination as based on a mis-reading of BLP. Articles are not supposed to be hagiographies. When OJ Simpson is arrested, we summarize what WP:RS say he was arrested for, without taking a stand on whether the allegations are "true". When he is charged we cover what WP:RS say the charges were, without taking a stand on whether he was guilty. When he is acquitted we do not remove from his article the fact that he was charged, because those charges might be embarrassing to him. The same should hold true for Abdullah Shahab, I believe. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is an extrajudicial prisoner of the United States at Bagram Theater Internment Facility. That isn't an event, it is a status. We have less information about him than some of the other detainees at Bagram or Guantanomo, but that doesn't make him non-notable. The article makes no judgements about him, so doesn't breach WP:BLP. Fences and windows (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are all 600 Guantanamo prisoners (I think this is the number. or?) notable? Do they all need an article? I am not sure about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree that this is article is one big BLP issue. Nothing has been proven, and there doesn't appear to be any wide notability around this person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to analyze here, article doesn't even make a claim to notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This person is simply not notable. Being a prisoner does not denote notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 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.