Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabir (detainee)

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. Fails WP:GNG. Big Dom 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shabir (detainee)

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

"Shabir" is the name of an individual imprisoned or formally imprisoned at the US detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. The only information the US military published about him was his name and his prison number. I think we do not know who this individual really is and we do not know when and why the US military imprisoned him and what happened to him. The second part of the article mentioned an alleged Taliban leader with the name "Shabir" and one commentator speculated that this might be the individual mentioned on the published list but i think we do not know this and even if i think this fails: WP:GNG, WP:BIO IQinn (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no evidence of notability.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are allowed as per WP:PRIMARY. There is no speculation being done here; secondary source Andy Worthington writing in Truthout is the "one commentator" who "speculated". PRIMARY correctly notes that speculation is the only concern (Original Research) with using primary sources. GNG etc are incorrect WP:CREEPs of the concern in PRIMARY. Anarchangel (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Primary / Secondary system is critically flawed, too. A jet crash survivor suffering from shock being interviewed on the airport runway and Supreme Court rulings should not be in the same grouping without some distinction being made.

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. As simple as that and even all sources together do not add up to "significant coverage" also needed per WP:GNG. No offence but it seems to me that you do not understand our basic core policies. WP:GNG is one of the most established and important one we have based on a wide community consensus and Afd's are not based on !votes. They are based on policy based arguments. IQinn (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's as good a place as any to start, when one considers the enormity of the task. I already said that GNG was incorrect, just quoting it at me isn't addressing what I said. No, it is not simple at all, and no, that is just absurd; the only reason any of these articles have been deleted is by discounting the primary sources. None taken, but you are mistaken; I can practically recite them out loud in my sleep. Neither established nor important, nor how many erring people worked on them prevents them from being erroneous. Finally, even if I had not frequently pointed out that AfDs are supposed to be based on votes, myself, despite all evidence to the contrary, what part of an argument against policy is not a policy based argument, exactly?. Anarchangel (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may can recite the policies but you do not respect the community consensus they reflect. Wikipedia_talk:Notability that's the place for you to go. Until then WP:GNG is valid and this article fails WP:GNG in multiple ways that i personally think your argumentation in this Afd is a bit of a waste of time. Please that this not an offence and i have given you the link to the place where you can try to change established core policies. Good luck. IQinn (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has not been the subject of secondary sources, and fails notability requirements accordingly. Being a Detainee does not make one notable. I searched for him in google, and came up with nothing.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indication of the existence of a topic through a single primary source does not demonstrate notability for inclusion. I can take a picture of my mailbox to prove its existence but that doesn't mean it warrants an article. Until the time "Shabir" receives recognition from reliable, neutral and independent third party sources as being notable as an independent subject this article fails to meet the inclusion criteria. This is an encyclopedia not an information database. On a side note to the original author of the article: this material may warrant note in an umbrella article on confirmed detainees. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice The article's creator has been chronically problamatic with article creation of this sort in the past. For those interested editors an RFC was started a month ago. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what little coverage there is of this guy is hardly "significant", as such its not notable under the WP:GNG. All we seem to know is his name and where he was captured (although that isn't even referenced). Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously an actual person. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to be an "actual person" does not solve the problem that this fails our basic notability guidelines as WP:GNG by a large margin. IQinn (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (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.