Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan Sari Sayel Al Anazi

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 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Sari Sayel Al Anazi

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

On a released guantanamo prisoner, no secondary coverage, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Tagged for lack of Notability since Aug 2011. The subject is already included in the List Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay DBig Xray 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 24 June 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, SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Guantanamo" gets 134,000 hits on Google News. Are we to believe that this is because of the architecture of the internment facility there? Or perhaps the guards, or their uniforms? A score or two of Gitmo prisoner articles have been deleted, first on the basis of an outdated interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY rule that forbad all primary sources, and now an invocation of GNG that clearly contradicts the facts. Guantanamo prisoners have always been notable, and are a clear case for WP:IAR to bypass the contradiction with GNG. The article, like all Guantanamo prisoner articles, has been savagely cut, from a 32k article down to only 2k bytes,

Either the sincerity or competence of this notability-based deletion nomination is in question. Offering the inclusion of the article's subject in a list as a consolation prize to inclusionists is incompatible with the basis of the nomination, as list components must be notable in their own right. Which is it? Is this article notable, or is its inclusion in a list and therefore on WP altogether still threatened? Anarchangel (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, list components don't have to be notable in their own right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. That point would have been useful to my arguments on many an occasion. Better late than never, and besides, then I can strike out the second part of my comment, and maybe someone will look past it and answer one or more of the points I made in the first part. Where is the rule you speak of, exactly? Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the exact WP:ALPHABETSOUP, but it's been mentioned in many places that things that aren't necessarily notable as stand-alone articles can be included in lists that cover their topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Guantanamo might well get 134,000 google news hits, but notability is not inherited. The article fails the policies and guidelines laid out by the nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not inherited from what, exactly?

An American base in Cuba is something of an anomaly, I will concede. But 134K? I think it is Gitmo that inherits notability from its inmates? Hmm, how might I test that? Let's see, coverage before the year 2001 might be good. 10,000 hits for the over 98 years between 1/1/1903, the year the base was founded, and 9/11/2001, the year, you know, that thing, happened. Google hits for the less than 11 years between 9/11 and today now total 136,000. I won't be arguing that these numbers are extremely accurate, I guess. Like it matters. Around 100 a year to well over 10,000 a year. Gitmo prisoners are 100 times as notable as their prison? Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply "Every Inmate of Guantanamo, is de facto notable"? I have to say that Bushranger is perfectly reasonable in his arguments above--DBig Xray 10:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, please see WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Notability is not inherited, and articles on living people need particularly strong referencing to be worthy of inclusion. Ignoring an absence of references is totally unacceptable in regards to BLP articles, as we have a presumption of privacy for individuals. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due process is not a violation of privacy, and what is repeatedly dismissed as PRIMARY is a record of what due process has been afforded. Anarchangel (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no individual coverage beyond routine serial publications of detainee papers; not enough biographical info to base a responsible BLP article on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being one of dozens/hundreds/whatever isn't notable in the slightest, we're not talking about leaders here who have received boatloads of coverage, these guys have near, zero, and what is out there is just "he was captured, he's held here" stuff. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 7 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.