Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Said Bin Said Zaid (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 06:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Said Bin Said Zaid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBig Xray 11:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. The case of the subject are already mentioned in list Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [1][2] [3] [4] was Delete DBig Xray 11:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do what now? The previous nomination for the flagship article was No Consensus. Anarchangel (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as to Walid Said Bin Said Zaid. The only sources that have been provided that actually mention the subject are primary sources and reprints of primary sources. Although the majority of the sources cited are dead links, most of them apparently pertain to the administrative review of the subject's detention, and such sources wouldn't demonstrate the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Primary sources are not forbidden. Notability rules including BIO and PRIMARY are quite obviously inadequate to deal with the importance of these cases, as I have argued previously; Google hits for Guantanamo Bay before 2001 are 100 per year; this increases to 10,000 a year for the period 2001 to present. These numbers show that notability quite obviously IS inherited, or perhaps it would be better to say, the real focus of notability can be obscured by the apparent focus of news articles. Anarchangel (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the Guantanamo detainees as a collective group does not necessarily carry over to the individual detainees. The fact that the Google News hits for Guantanamo increased to 10,000 a year after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars began has to do with the establishment of the detention camp, but that's already covered at Guantanamo Bay detention camp and related articles. The detainees themselves each need to be evaluated for notability on their own merits, not just because they are or were held in a notable place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: these articles fail WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete full agreement with Nick-D. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Metropolitan90 points out, that WP:GHITS analysis applies to the detention camp, not the individual detainees. One does not become notable because one is detained in a notable prison. By that logic, every victim of Auchwitz would be notable - which is not the case. Each detainee must be evaulated based on their own, individual notability; while primary sources are allowed, they can not be used to establish notability. There is no extensive coverage of individual detainees, except in very rare cases which is not the case here. WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with most every other Gitmo detainee, a lengthy, overly-wordy article is propped up almost purely by primary sources. Anarchangel's call for an exception to notability guidelines for a political prisoner is without merit. Even if reliable sources picked up on this person's situation, it'd still be squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Fail now, or fail down the road. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sourcing is not, per se, the problem here. Primary sources are reliable and valid. The problem is POV; it reads like a press release. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources are reliable and valid, but they cannot establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; subjects do not appear to be independently notable in and of themselves and therefore do not appear to pass WP:BIO, additionally none appear to pass WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nomination. The subjects of these articles are not notable under WP:GNG because they lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources. Therefore they do no warrant individual articles of their own. The meagre information available on these subjects is already included in broader articles on the topic. Anotherclown (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2012 (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.