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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Since 2006 our policy on biographies of living individuals has become a lot firmer, and we have become less tolerant of articles which purport to be biographies but are in fact about something else. I believe this is one such. I think it is fair to say that the detention of political prisoners without trial in the cause fo "freedom" is one of the greater ironies of the 21st Century, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International and we should not be writing faux-biographies to cover essentially generic content such as the fact that no proper independent review process exists for detainees, if only out of practical considerations of redundancy. A quick survey leads me to conclude that most of the articles on individual detainees are, in the present WP:BLP climate, merged or deleted, and I believe that is fundamentally right. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unless a merge target can be found for abridged info.--Doc^g 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Press coverage of the proceedings has made him notable. --Eastmain (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, press coverage of the proceedings has made the proceedings notable. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I would appreciate a fuller explanation as to why nominator considers this a "faux-biography".

Please note:

1. Analysts accused him of being an Osama bin Laden bodyguard.
2. although the rules required his continued detention to have been reviewed in 2005, the record shows it was not reviewed.
3. he did have a Review Board hearing scheduled for 2006 -- a month after he had already been released.

I disagree with the nominator that material like this turns the wikipedia into "Amnesty International". I already responded to this assertion yesterday, on the nominator's talk page. I pointed out that Amnesty International is a kind of advocacy group, that the material it publishes makes no attempt to comply with anything like the wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I believe this article, on the other hand, fully complies with the wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. If there is some passage(s) the nominator, or anyone else, thinks does not comply with WP:NPOV, or any other policy, please be specific.

Frankly, I am puzzled by challenges like this one. They leave me wondering whether some contributors think there should be some kind of unofficial cap on the number of bytes that can be devoted to certain topics. If the wikipedia community wants to put caps on the amount of coverage of certain topics, then lets talk about those caps openly.

The wikipedia already covers lots of topics I am not interested in, and some I think are patent nonsense. I think the field of Homeopathy is patent nonsense. But I don't dispute that an article that cites good references could be written from a neutral point of view about it. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of any policy-compliant material because I, personally, thought the topic was nonsense.

Similarly, I am not a fan of American football. I didn't play it as a kid, and don't really know the rules. I took a look at Category:American football quarterbacks. It currently contains 1136 entries. I started looking at the articles, and found about a third were mere stubs, only a couple of sentences long, that didn't cite any references at all. Football is popular. I can see people wanting to look these guys up, even if our articles don't provide much information. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of that material, just because I, personally, don't find it interesting myself.

Do people read the wikipedia's material on the war on terror? Absolutely. Do readers use the wikipedia's material on individual Guantanamo captives. Absolutely. I get questions from readers about material I have contributed on this topic, both on my talk page, and by email. I see places where articles like this one are explicitly cited, and instances where I am morally convinced an author used our material without citing it. WP:ATA suggests "usefulness" is not always a good argument for inclusion. But, since this article does fully comply with policy, I would suggest this is one of the instances when usefulness is a good argument for inclusion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Media coverage of Guantanamo have made the inmates collectively notable, but I doubt one in ten thousand could name a handful, if that many, let alone give any pertinent facts about them. Neither does this article; it's full of legal minutiae, much of it not specifically about the subject. I wouldn't call this a WP:BLP issue -- there isn't a thing here not on legal record -- but as it stands, the sources are not really about the subject (as opposed to being about Guantanamo detainees generally) and I question whether any exist.  RGTraynor  16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are perfectly free to find the material uninteresting. But I don't understand how you can say the sources aren't about Al Juhani. We have several pages of allegation memos, drafted independently, from first principles, that is about nothing but Al Juhani. And, of course, we have his testimony, which I think you will agree, is about him? Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge or delete because the only coverage of him is part of lists of those in guantanamo, probably there's already a list of them, on which he is placed. He's not notable in and of himself because sources have not been articles about him alone in-depth. [1] special, random, Merkinsmum 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No offense, I hope, if I question whether you may have a misconception I have encountered before. WP:BIO says nothing about requiring media sources. I believe this article fully complies with this and other policies and guidelines. If there is a specific passage in a policy or guideline which you think the article does not comply with I would be very grateful if you would return here, and quote it. I am going to paste in the lead sentence:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

Please note, he is accused of having been one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, something that lead to other captives facing war crimes charges.

Please note, the DoD seems to have completely lost track of him for two years, failing to schedule a review in 2005, and then scheduling a review of his detention -- after he had already been released from detention. You do not regard this as significant? It would be really helpful to me, and I would really appreciate it, if you would try to explain why you do not regard this allegation, his disappearance from the record, as significant.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, how many prisoners do you think the United States "loses" a day? What about that is a prima facie declaration of "significance?" If (allegedly) being bin Laden's bodyguard makes the fellow notable, how can his name have only twenty unique Google hits [2], a total dwarved by insignificant Myspace wannabees we AfD in carload lots? Answer: he ain't notable.  RGTraynor  19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how many prisoners in the US criminal justice system might get temporarily lost for a day. But Al Juhani wasn't lost for a day. He was lost for two years. Not only was he lost. He was released without the OARDEC, the agency with the responsibility to authorize released, realizing he had been released.

Let me suggest that the losing track of Al Juhani the record reflects has more in common to the release of Willie Horton. How commonly are murderers or suspected terrorists accidentally released by the US Criminal Justice System? Are you trying to suggest that if it became known that if a suspected terrorist was accidentally released from the US Criminal Justice System it would not merit coverage here? Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User GeoSwan- you made the quote for me- every wikipedia article needs to have been the subject itself of reliable sources, otherwise it is non-notable. Ok it's not unverifiable, but no journalist etc has considered him personally someone to write an article about. We're not a secondary source- we're a tertiary source that is wikipedia summarizes what has been written about the subject. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse me. Every fact that should be referenced is referenced. Every reference in this article is verifiable. Several people have told me that the policies state articles require media coverage. But, no offense, when I checked the policies they cited, for myself, I could not find the passages that required media coverage. I'd be very grateful if you can find the places in the policy that state this.

Other challengers seem to be saying that even if the policy doesn't state that articles require media coverage we should treat the policies as if they said what "everyone" thinks they say. Well, if it were really true that everyone really did think the policies both required media coverage, and agreed that the policies should say require media coverage, then the policy should be rewritten, so it says what everyone thinks it says. If simply everyone agreed the that the policy should say the articles should require media coverage, then I would agree with deleting this article, until the policies were rewritten. I'd nominate similar articles for deletion myself.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, even ignoring my hatred for "second attempts" to have something deleted....we have articles on Hitler's chauffeur, Hitler's valet, Hitler's nurse, Hitler's electrician, Hitler's doctor, Hitler's pilot, Hitler's bodyguard, Hitler's medical aide, Hitler's secretary and Hitler's chef. We have over 1000 articles on Quarterbackers in the NFL, we have every single Pokemon character...and you're arguing that an alleged terrorist "isn't notable enough" to merit a neutral article collecting the details about them?

In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like Raymond Lee Harvey or Thomas Bernard Brigham? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient litmus test for notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 60 and 90 respectively, which aren't awful for folks whose fifteen minutes of fame (if they can be said to have had that many) were before the Internet era. That being said, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a compelling argument, and that being said, this article in fact contains no verifiable details about the subject beyond the legal proceedings against him. No details of his life are reported beyond the unsourced claim by counter-terrorist units of his date and place of birth. Even on nothing more than biographical grounds, it's terribly deficient. Is this really anything more than WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK violations?  RGTraynor  22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost all of which are Wikipedia mirrors and conspiracy theorist forums, I don't see a single "Reputable source" for either of them. I'm sure with digging, one could be found - same as ones could be found for al-Juhani if we spoke Arabic. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll Agree, wikipedia conventionally does not put stock in "other stuff". But, I'd really appreciate learning why you don't consider the info in the allegations memos to be verifiable? Similarly, concerning "the details of his life" -- we know a lot more about a lot of people we have articles about. Marraiges, children, where they went to school, etc. But we do know quite a bit about Al Juhani. The Summary of Evidence memo from his CSR Tribunal lists seven allegations. I would be very grateful to read your explanation as to why these should not be considered "details of his life". Is it possible that the authors of the OARDEC memos got it wrong? Sure. But, since the wikipedia's policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth", I suggest it doesn't matter if you or I have private doubts about the truth of the allegations in the memo. In particular, I suggest, being accused of being one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards alone should be meaningful enough to merit coverage here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I started an article on Frederick G. Creed in 2005. It is still pretty sparse, sparser than Al Juhani's. And, like the article on Al Juhani, it is useful nonetheless. Let me suggest that lacking a complete set of the details of someone's life should not be grounds to delete an article on an inventor, or an alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguard. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage. A fortiori, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.

• Agreed that the Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.

• Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates WP:UNDUE. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating WP:COATRACK.

• The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons. WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH (he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His "claim to fame" seems to be mostly that he is a prisoner in Guantanomo, and he's hardly the only person to accomplish that. I question his worldwide and long term notability. After you remove the legal-speak and blatant POV, you would have a two line stub about a prisoner that was eventually repatriated to his country. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT to "claim to fame" WP:BIO explicitly clarifies, in the first paragraph, that notability is not the same as "fame".

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

I've asked this participant to be specific about which passage(s) triggered their concern over a "blatant POV". Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article reads like an essay about how unlawful/unfair it is for prisoners to be in GB, and it has more to do with the Tribunal process than Al Juhani. Significant sections of the lede and other paragraphs are dedicated to the questionable legal status/ethical status of GB, which isn't explicitly relevant to this person in this article. I actually had to read the article twice to figure out what "crime" he is accused of land himself there, because it is mentioned once in the lede, and then further relevant details about the case are buried near the bottom. In short, it looks like a GB coatrack, propped around a non-notable prisoner that has since been released from the American jail in which he was serving. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your reply. I am interested in your comments about finding the article hard to read. I'd like to take them into account when improving the article. But I think the deletion policies are pretty clear that perceptions that articles are hard to read are not normally grounds for deletion.

And thanks for your comment about WP:COATRACK. I've re-read the COATRACK essay just a week or so ago. It is a good essay. But I am surprised by suggestions that this article matches any of its descriptions. I would be very grateful if you would return to the COATRACK essay, and state which specific passages of that essay you think apply. I'll thank you in advance for doing that. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep on the basis there will probably be sources there as well. The article is about what he did before GB, and what happened after. I don't myself see what the number of quarterbacks have to do with it, but I dont see how the number of GB prisoners has anything to do with it either. We can accommodate whatever we need to. If something should make a large number of individuals notable, we can deal with it as long as we have verifiable information about each of them. In this case we do. DGG (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Guantanamo prisoners hailing from western countries, for example the Tipton Three, couldn't be more notable and have received media coverage ad nauseam. I'm sure there's a fair deal of sources about him in Arabic too: [3]. Controversies in international politics and diplomacy about US anti-terrorists imprisonment policies are of such an order of magnitude that, all individuals incarcerated in Guatanamao are ipso facto notable, contra NickPenguin. Also, what DGG says.--victor falk 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If all GB prisoners are ipso facto notable, then does that mean that all the names on List of Guantánamo Bay detainees should be redlinked? That's a lot of stub articles for people that may only be notable for a prison sentence. EDIT And this guy isn't even on that list! Tell me again how he is notable? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes.
    • Just like there's a lot of stub and red-linked articles for olympic gold medalists, WP:PAPER; if you will, Gitmo is like winning gold in the global carceral system.
    • Perhaps he should be added, then? About half are blue-linked, it seems in this list as a matter of copy-editing style, it has been chosen to have all the others black, which is very reasonable, as a lot of red links is distracting to the reader. ¨victor falk 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, just because you believe Guantanamo is the gold medal of the carceral system doesn't mean it's true, and that isn't really a perfect analogy. But without drawing into question the notability of the prison itself, is this a case where the individual is notable outside this single prison sentence, or is he only notable for this single event? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nick, sometimes people agree on the facts, and disagree in the conclusions they draw. But, no offense, you have repeated a couple of misconceptions. The only Guantanamo captive to receive a sentence was David Hicks, for the final couple of months or so he spent there. Please don't confuse the captives with convicted felons. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, minor wording issues aside, my general criticism still applies: is he notable for anything other than this event? If not, then the event article needs more attention, and this article can be deleted. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article fails the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Though there is coverage of Gitmo trials in general, there is not significant coverage of this individual himself. There is only one independent secondary source reference (the Huffington Post article) that says anything more about him than simply his name, but he's not the focus of the article. The majority of references listed for him are military documents that do not constitute independent secondary sources. This article clearly violates WP:BIO basic criteria. BWH76 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read assertions that these kinds of sources fail WP:BIO before. And I have asked for the specific passages my correspondents think they do not fulfill. But, to be very frank, my correspondents have left me sadly disappointed, by not being able to cite those passages. Perhaps you would be so kind as to make the effort to cite those passages where others have not? Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I can't speak for others but the passage that I would cite would be: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted... Cover the event, not the person." Since all the information comes from the Gitmo context, I think WP:BLP1E applies. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I take it you'll be cleaning out Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors next? --Pixelface (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS trumps WP:BLP. (Not to say that I think all articles in that category necessarily pose a problem -- only if they have the WP:BLP1E problem of not including biographical information and only focusing on one event in the person's life.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the individuals in that category have done nothing notable outside of surviving the holocaust, then those articles should be deleted, clearly. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the information in the article looks verifiable, neutral, and does not appear to be original research — conforming to WP:BLP. This doesn't appear like a "faux biography" to me. I think this individual is significant enough to be recorded. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same BLP concerns that have stricken the rest of the Gitmo entries. At the heart of it all, these articles are not fundamentally biographies of people, as we have no real biographical information (aside from information about (or related to) their incarceration)). While their treatment may be well covered and documented, that makes the treatment notable, not the individuals. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO Xdenizen (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per DGG, Pixelface and others. Also claims there are somehow BLP issues are unconvincing; these are notable people and we have no reason to believe that any of them have a problem with having an article. Indeed, if one takes one POV more publicity makes it more likely that these people will be released, so the notion that there is a harm in having articles about this individual is hard to understand. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bfigura. Articles on arbitrary Gitmo detainees are generally going to fall due to non-notability. I'm seriously concerned that many of these articles are being used as coatracks to bring up anti-GB sentiments. Which sentiments I tend to share, but grossly violate WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please point out a passage that could be interpreted as npov and rousing anti-GB sentiments in this particular article (cf. wp:otherstuff)?victor falk 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even if Muhamad wasn't notable for being an alleged body-guard to Osama Bin Laden, articles on individual detainees is motivated by Wikipedia:Summary style, if longer than a couple of lines as it otherwise would make the List of Guantánamo Bay detainees completely unmanageable.14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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.