Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim

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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. The question of whether the article should be merged, redirected, or deleted was trickier to judge. I did not find the arguments for any of these positions particularly compelling, and so I am basing my decision to delete purely on the number of editors who recommended it (six "deletes" versus two "merge/redirects"). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 August 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Muhammed Qasim

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner using an opinion piece and primary source as reference and tagged for multiple issues since 2009. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an individual the subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable due to lack of "signficant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Guantanamo article which fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 17 for the reason why this AfD has been re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am now growing seriously concerned about these nominations.
Geo Swan is one of Wikipedia's most active editors with many, many articles to his credit, and reading the DRV will show you that the repeated nominations of things he's written, all by the same user, are causing him to feel distressed and demoralised. For whatever reason, DBigXray is going through systematically destroying Geo Swan's entire corpus at a rapid rate. When I raised my concern about the effect this was having in the past, DBigXray strongly took offence at my words and made a number of quite virulent accusations against me.
It is accepted that not everything Geo Swan has ever written complies with Wikipedia norms, but in my opinion one editor should not be allowed to wipe out another editor's entire corpus. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan for the history that underlies this.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and this constant haranguing has been going on for years. I'm impressed that Geo has persevered. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take the opposite view: Geo Swan has created a large series of articles on Guantanamo Bay, many (most?) of which cover individuals whose only claim to notability is that they have been imprisoned there. It appears that his motivation for doing so was to highlight how horrible this all is (and, from what I can make out, I think that I actually have similar views to him on the morality and legality of Guantanamo Bay). He was asked to clean up these articles as part of the RfC, but has failed to do so. As a result, there's now a clean up operation underway, and I commend DBigXray for this. Claims that "one editor should not be allowed to wipe out another editor's entire corpus" are not justified by the process through which these deletions are being handled (consensus-based AfD discussions), not to mention the concerns raised in the RfC. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SMarshall Read and follow WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person, Also Stop making false misleading accusations of bad faith, would you let me know where did I make the so called quite virulent accusations that you claim[1] I have made ? I can see SMarshall had accused me of a Crusadeon an AfD which itself is a severe Bad faith accusation on his part to which i left a civil and sane reply on Marshall's talk page[2] to stick to the content and stop doing WP:AOBF. From what i See this is clear case of Lying by SMarshall opposite to WP:AGF--DBigXray 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a rough count, you've nominated 65 articles written by Geo Swan for deletion in the last month. I asked you whether you were on some kind of cleanup crusade. You said you were "very offended by this" and described it as a violation of WP:CIVIL. I explained my concerns, and you then called my concerns an "assumption of bad faith", which it is not. You have consistently been angry and accusing with me when I raise this, and it's quite apparent to me that you do not wish to discuss it. My position remains that 65 XfD nominations on the same editor in the same month is totally unreasonable, and may constitute wikihounding.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion about this deletion discussion to the talk page --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And moved back. The closer should read this.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved I think you should have left it alone someone else would have undone it if it was needed, the appropriate place for discussion about the deletion discussion is the talk page. Your attempt to sideline the discussion away from the article but onto people is not something I'll edit war over, but I think this attempt to poison the well is frankly disgusting. If you believe that people feeling upset should be placed in front of building an encyclopedia, then he can take that discussion to the appropriate place, not individual AFDs. AFD is not dispute resolution --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just decided that the appropriate place for this discussion is AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo_Swan_and_AfDs

Merge somewhere. BLP1E and GNG do not mandate deletion, not in general, and not in this case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP issue. Wikipedia places no limit on the amount of another editors articles that can be listed for deletion and indeed it shouldn't, and article not appropriate should be removed no matter who is listing it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is one specific WP:BLP issue that you see with the content? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. Manifestly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 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.