Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

2179:

federal court orders directing the American Department of Defense to make that information available. It's unprecedented also that Knowledge (XXG) would have articles about each person who has been imprisoned in a particular facility. There are very few groups where each individual is considered inherently notable. Knowledge (XXG) has a policy providing for a nation's legislators, for instance, to each merit their own article. Knowledge (XXG) has such a policy for individual athletes playing in a particular sports league. If there is a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees, then that takes precedence over our own personal preferences. However, I don't think that there's a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees. And judging Ajam as being notable in the sense of being mentioned specifically as an example of the plight of detainees held without trial, or as a significant participant in the activities of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, my opinion is that he is not notable.

48:, allowing redirect. The keep !votes adequately established that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. Knowledge (XXG) should not be the first place to write notional biographies of living individuals, but luckily that is not what was happening here since the article is largely comprised of minor details of his detention. Summary: Gitmo is notable, the fact of a number of people being detained at gitmo is notable, the things that go on at gitmo are said by many (and with some justification) to be an outrage to human decency, but Knowledge (XXG) is not 400:, if only because this is the first time I've seen evidence that Usama apparently runs a law school. (edit: In all seriousness, keep because we have an obligation not unlike Snopes.com that when somebody is labelled "the worst of the worst" and faced with punishment that goes beyond what can be prescribed under the legal code...we have a responsibility to gather and present the facts of the case and provide context. I agree the article is poorly-written and could use some help, but deletion is not the answer.) 2794:- Geoswan, you've gone to great lengths to reject my opinions on this subject, and that's fine. Implying that that I may be a sockpuppet, a Wikistalker, and am not being serious is going too far. Yes, you carefully specifically say that you are not accusing me or anyone else of voicing our opinions with malice, but by couching your comments towards me personally in accusations of sockpuppetry, wikistalking, etc., your implication is clear. Please do not make those baseless accusations. 3940:, I think at this point it'll probably close as "No consensus" no matter how many arguments either side puts forward. At this point I think two specific users are just wasting their time arguing, neither will get the other to confess the error of their ways - why not just put this effort into improving articles, rather than arguing over bureaucracy? Neither side is going to change anything today, it seems - so let's move forward without the emnity and spats. :) 3896:"A more distant relationship" for a third party? Mainstream news organizations; "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", to name two. Basically, any source that does not have a direct connection to the subject matter. OARDEC has a direct connection in that it judged whether the detainee stayed in or was released from detention. 2827:. To sum it up, the OARDEC reports were written by the US military about detainees held by the US military under the oversight of the civilian head of one branch of the US military. I don't believe that this constitutes an independent source. I do think that the OARDEC sources could be perfect for our purposes - but only if they are corroborated by independent sources. 2440:

as we usually do with our articles, please feel free to check those yourself, maybe someone else wrote about him." Point being, in AfDs, sources have to be found for the article to be kept, not the other way around. The speculations about possible sources are helpful as a means to actually check them - but unless/until someone does that, there should not be an article. --

1837:

not a felon convicted of a criminal offense, then I would support having an article written about him or her. I'd insist that the article contain a non-trivial amount of information, be written from a neutral point of view, and cite reliable, verifiable sources. If you have a concern with that, could you please be specific about which part concerns you?

1048:

Deputy Assistant Secrectary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, and from foreign intelligence services. After reviewing these documents the OARDEC authors reached conclusions, and listed justifications for his continued detention. I would like someone to explain why this should not be regarded as significant coverage, or substantial coverage.

2398:. His name is only listed along with dozens of other internees in the media and he appears in the OARDEC reports that were done by the US government. OARDEC is an American Department of Defence organization (under the control of the Navy) that has the sole purpose of reviewing each internee's case/status! There are literally 951: 3635:

a third-party. It is a US government organization, led by the now-Deputy Director of Defense, which made judgements on detainees held by the military. It is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article

3014:

The last is the current situation. As I said in the other discussion, you are perfectly free to mistrust whether it lies within the capacity of the US Government to have multiple separate agencies, that don't report to one another, that are, on paper independent, and are independent in practice too.

2439:

So when a reader of the article will ask "Why is Knowledge (XXG) the only place giving individual attention to this person?" you will also answer "Oh, but we do not know that for sure, transliterating his name into Arabic gives 5-50 web search results in google, and while we won't provide a reference

2173:

I have been asked to review the counterarguments and to comment. In addition, I've looked at the declassified Combatant Status Review Board site, which is the source for the arguments for detaining or releasing a particular prisoner and is listed on www.dod.mil/pubs. And while I think that articles

1836:

WRT to your chinese political prisoners -- no, I would not argue for having a separate article for every political prisoner whose name becomes public. But when there are meaningful reliable sources that back up the claim that a prisoner, in China, Iran, or any other country, is a political prisoner,

1822:

Briefly, I agree, your ordinary Supermax convict would not merit coverage on the wikipedia. But Charles Manson, if he were held there, would. The USA has a justice system that, like those of most other nations, is well-understood, predictable. Convicts had trials. Evidence was gathered, witnesses

1548:

is that the article should not be deleted, which is the point of this discussion. I have no strong opinion on how the various prisoners are presented here but, even if they were to be gathered together in some list or compilation, this article would still be useful as a redirect since the name is an

3560:

Intent aside, there's no secondary independant sources. One short response on a noticeboard is far cry from a concensus (a reason why nobody else bothered to reply might be because they aren't interested in getting a long "please explain further" on their talk page (which everyone who disagrees with

2940:

I had challengers who asserted that OARDEC reported to the Camp Commandant at Guantanamo. That was not true. On paper the relationship is a distant one. My reading of the documents is that in practice it was a distant one. The OARDEC staff had tremendous difficulty getting the cooperation of the

2178:

should be fully supported, I don't see that each individual detainee merits a separate article. It's unprecedented that there would be an internet site that would have detailed information about each individual imprisoned at a particular facility, and it comes about in this case because of American

1047:

The memos were independently drafted, by a separate agency from the task force authorized to detain and interrogate the captives. The authors of these memos reviewed source documents from the FBI, from the CIA, from the USA's Criminal Investigation Task Force for Afghanistan, from the office of the

692:

of its prisoners is a matter of international concern, and that is why the detention camp is notable. The issue here is wheter each and every prisoner is notable or not. And the question that has to be answered it whether there's substantial coverage of the subject of the bio. I also think that that

567:

Again, this is merely a confusion of the issues. Whether he attended law school (as Sherurcij originally claimed) or just regular college (as now claimed) and whether it is mentioned somewhere in the hundred page complaints or it isn't, is immaterial. Osama having a school is no way connected to the

140:

is unnotable. That being said, it does not mean that every prisoner that was or is held at Guantanamo Bay is notable. There has been over 700 detainess held at one point on Guantanomo Bay. Should there be an article on each prisoner? Of course not. Except, of course, if there's substantial coverage

3654:

OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it has no reputation at all. The recommendations on the OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources. Again, the question is not whether the OARDCEC reports exist, the question

2811:

You are correct, though, in that I had not seen that you asked similar questions in more than one forum. I disagree with the answer you received due to how you made the case. As I wrote before, OARDEC is a military organization under control of the US Department of Navy and under the direction of

1180:

considerably more serious, or considerably less serious, than the accusations against the hundreds of other detainees who are or who have been held at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that the body assigned to review the continued detention of Ajam generated a memo about him, as they did for numerous other

610:

in one hundred pages of complaints, as asserted above. The article's references clearly specify which page(s) within the pdfs the memos are found on. No one is asking readers to read articles random articles they may not be interested in. But I think we are entitled to have those who nominate or

3499:

If you will allow me to paraphrase what I think you are saying -- you think it is obvious -- or common senses, that since the Sec Def is England's boss when he is Sec Nav or Deputy Sec Def, England is going to tailor his decisions to please the Sec Def, even when he is wearing his DCO hat. Have I

2730:

Please go back and try re-reading this again. Please note that my correspondent offered many opinions on the difference between primary and secondary sources in other threads on the Noticeboard, and that his or her opinion and expertise seems to have been widely accepted. Let me suggest that the

2271:

There's plenty of articles here with Syrian-language media sources, and this person shouldn't be treated any differently then any other person that isn't from a non-english speaking country. Unless everyone from non-english speaking countries is assumed notable without any sources. I doubt it. But

1175:

You asked why it "is not significant" that Ajam "stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side." I don't think that this is significant in itself without further evidence

222:

Nobody told me that posting above others with lines is the new the afd discussion guidline, but I will accordingly get in style. The creator of the article believes that the continuous repetition (and putting them in boxes) in this discussion of incorrect Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines will

2764:

I work very hard to make my sure my contributions fully comply with policy. Any serious correspondent of mine will tell you that when I find a lapse, I openly acknowledge it, and fix it myself. So, please confine your discussion to points of policy and hold back from making comments on what you

2484:

True, I just assumed that's how they were found. What I basically tried to say is that, as long as there are only speculations about possible Arabic websites, we don't need proof that they are only speculations. Instead, it would be very easy to show that they are not, by just providing cite-able

3145:

I've thought about this. I've thought about whether I could come up with sources that could prove OARDEC was not a truly independent agency? No. I could not. Are there sources that challenge the independence of OARDEC? Sure. Prove? No. You are perfectly free to insert material that cites

1208:

per nom. The article cites only primary sources, with no secondary sources to establish news coverage of this individual. Almost all Google hits for him are from Knowledge (XXG) itself, and there are no Google News or Google News Archive hits I could find. The fact that he is held at the notable

605:

have been published. They were drafted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each of these memos was published together with memos against other captives in three separate pdf files that are each about one hundred pages long. But the 2004 memo is one page long, and the 2005 and 2006 memos are just two pages

2333:

Simply transliterating his name into Arabic (he has a highly unusual name, so I also tried entries that didn't mention the Muhammad, etc) I would estimate there's somewhere between 5-50 websites that mention him, including news media, government (.sy, nearly all hits are Syrian, solidifying the

2753:... I have encountered a limited number of wikipedians who have been willing to use fair means or foul to suppress the wikipedia's coverage of material on the war on terror. Some of them were prepared to go so far as sockpuppetry and wikistalking. Those challengers were classic examples of 3914:

As for adding more sources to balance the article, I think that's what we've been discussing now for days. There ARE no other independent, reliable sources out there that anyone has yet found. This is why the opinion that there is not significant coverage of this individual has been voiced

3745:

If respondent is trying repeat that the staff who guard and interrogate the captives are also making the recommendations as to whether they should be released or repatriated then he or she is incorrect. What respondent describes is true of the detention camps in Afghanistan, and was true of

1698:

First, unless specifically stated otherwise, the scope of my arguments nartually limit themselves to the debate at hand. With that in mind, a few hundred detainees each with their own article could easily overwhelm paper-based encyclopedia, but that's not a problem with an electronic-based

3906:

Comparing the independence of a military organization charged with determining the freedom of detainees held by the military to that of the EPA is comparing apples and oranges. If it's necessary to explain this in more detail, I will, but we've wasted enough space already in this

3036:

The wikipedia's policies would proscribe you inserting this personal opinion into article space. This is an aspect of the wikipedia's policies that some wikipedians find counter-intuitive. Even some experienced administrators forget sometimes that the wikipedia aims for

1734:

I've just drastically re-written the lead information on this detainee, at this point. I feel this improves the article and helps establish his notability. I believe that if the original author also uploads the transcripts for the subject's ARB and CSRT proceedings to

3727:

has critics, various other US agencies have critics. The United Nations has critics. The existence of critics does not cause us to disregard the statements that the leaders of those agencies might make at press conferences, or the official documents those agencies

2272:

now that we are on the subject, I would like to point out that there's a few good reasons why there's no Syrian media sources on this prisoner. 1- Unlike in democracies, its no big deal if someone is locked up without having recieved (what is considered) the normal

2568:

I addressed the nominator's concern that "significant coverage" was required. The article meets all the requirements in the passage that defines "significant coverage". The memos are about him, and they do not require interpretation to verify that they are about

3839:

Respondent seems to be insisting that wikipedians have to make sure allegations are idependently proven true, before we place them in an article. When we cover the allegations against ordinary people no one hires private detectives to independently verify those

309: 2280:

might not want its citizens to know about any Al-Queda members in its country. But all theories aside, everyone - angel or terrorist - must have significant reliable sources that establish his/her notability if they are to be included in this encyclopedia.

472:

I've added "edit" to my addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with making you look stupid (though I think you claiming that I'm in "clear violation" of a suggested guideline is doing a fine job) - it has to do with me clarifying my position. Let it go.

2659:

For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic

2225:

If there are reports about an individual then he is notable. And yes i do think there is likely to be individual sourcing about every one of them in their native country and language, and it is merely outr limitation of having difficulty in finding them.

1054:, in particular, stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side. I would like someone to explain why this is not significant. 1363:

can of course mean anything, including those military documents. But if Knowledge (XXG) is the only place in all the web as well as all printed media (that we know about) talking about this person, then it's evident how someone can interpret that as no

3764:

I am going to repeat my request, I would like anyone who thinks the documented relationship between OARDEC and JTF-GTMO to be considered distant enough to be described as "third party" to describe a more distant relationship they would consider "third

1601:

does not establish notability as each hit is in fact simply a name on the list ( the subject of the article only appears on lists of prisoners). In other words, there is no independent coverage where this person is the subject of the article. Fails

3080:

and other policies. It may strike you as counter-intuitive, but arguments that neutrally written material, cites valid references, can't be suppressed, because, for instance, it strikes someone as violating "common sense". "Common sense" is not

3714:, with the idea the Guantanamo captives are like ordinary convicted felons. But I agree with what respondent seemed to be saying three days ago, that the OARDEC memos are like Parole Board reports, in that they are the product of a third party. 1930:

If we had a source, maybe a Syrian newspaper, that asserted that all the remaining Syrian captives in Guantanamo were being tortured, it would require original research, interpretation, to insert the conclusion that this meant Ajam had been

1796:

prisoners at Guantanamo (or for that matter, at the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, or at a Chinese camp for political prisoners) are inherently notable, then I don't see that Ajam is more notable than any other person who is incarcerated.

3655:

of verifiability is of what the OARDEC reports say. So, what are we left with? Nothing. No independent, reliable sources. The article lacks significant (or any) coverage outside of the disputed sources. The article does not satisfy

1823:

testified, and were cross examined. If the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced, then we assume he was guilty, will be treated consistently and fairly, and will be released on schedule, unless he commits more crimes while in detention.

3711: 1816: 377: 2918:

that these three positions Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Designated Civilian Official are separate, independent positions, and that the DCO does not report to the Secretary of the Navy, or to the Dep Sec

2402:

of OARDEC reports on detainees - it would be similar to say (to stick with the Supermax comparison) that a Supermax-commissioned report on a possible parolee at Supermax would constitute notability. This just does not satisfy

3969:

With all these kilobytes of incorrect wikipedia policy, that is exactly what the creator wishes should happen. But "No concensus" is when there is valid argument on both sides. I hope the closing admin sees through all this

749:

The article "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject" no matter how much it focuses on its subject. The creator, in previos afd's, repeatedly states that the importance of the lack of due process that

345: 2047: 1670:

Another thing that you are confusing is that the basis for the deletion is that they are bad people. That is flat-out wrong. To the contrary, those that "committed shockingly evil acts" have a better basis for inclusion.

4244:: Although this discussion has been polarized from the start, we should nevertheless be trying to work towards a consensus. Some people will provide short opinions, others (who have the time) longer ones. That should be 1826:

While, I agree your ordinary Supermax convict doesn't merit coverage, I would argue that any Supermax convict for whom there are meaningful references to non-trivial claims he or she was wrongfully convicted would merit

3910:

My parole board comparison was a bit off, I admit, as some are independent agencies while some are part of the department of corrections (in the US). OARDEC does not fall into the category of "independent agency"

223:

validate the guidelines. Some of us have responded at each turn, but as our fingers hurt, and we have real-world issues, there might not be a response at each turn pointing out again and again the misconceptopns. --

878:

documents such as those this article uses are unsatisfactory sources, because they are merely "primary sources", not "secondary sources". I took a closer look at the definitions, and it seemed to me these sources

4195:

Please stop harrassing everybody who votes, it just makes you look like a dick. I've never yet seen somebody change their vote because one over-zealous voter browbeats them...they disagree with you, let it stand.

183: 179: 3812:

Should the wikipedia have stopped using official FEMA documents as references? Should the wikipedia have accompanied every use of a FEMA document as a reference, with a reference to one of FEMA's authoritative

2393:

that web hits of a simple transliteration of this name must be about this subject (without confirmation of this fact) is not an acceptable means to justify this individual's notability. What does remain is that

2945:

staff. JTF-GTMO staff routinely withheld exculpatory documents and other evidence from the OARDEC staff. The authors of the memos routinely seemed to have reached very different conclusions from those of the

2010:. If this suggestion is going to be repeated I would like those repeating it to state which type(s) they think it is an instance of. It seems to me that this article is not an instance of any of those types. 313: 2138: 758:

then that. Indeed, your reason for non-deletion pretty much says the same. There is a confusion with an important issue and people that are pawns in an important issue. The former is notable, not the latter.

3232:

Rather, I've been designated by Secretary Rumsfeld to operate and oversee a process to conduct an annual review of each enemy combatant held by the Department of Defense in Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba."

2883: 2745:

guideline. I asked other respondents to be specific, and cite the specific passage(s) it does not fulfill. I ask you the same. I have offered my arguments, if you have counter-arguments, again, what are

1833:

Guantanamo captives aren't like ordinary convicts -- they are much more like those for whom there is a controversy over whether they were wrongfully convicted -- except, of course, they were never convicts.

3356:

How are you going to juggle this responsibility with being Navy secretary, though? You've got what seems to be a full plate just being Navy secretary. How are you going to do this, juggle the priorities?

195: 999:

Noone here is arguing about the reliability of the sources, that's merely a confusion of the issues. There is one issue - and one issue only - is this person notable or not. Nothing so far has shown that

3068:

And, similarly, although it may strike you as counter-intuitive, the wikipedia's policies do not allow us to suppress material, no matter how untrue it might seem to us personally, if it complies with

1301:, and that's all that counts. If he has received no individual media attention (most likely because they also have no other information), Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't have an individual article either. -- 329: 175: 3370:

Well, we just spend the time to do it. I mean, we will do this right. Like I said, I take this very seriously, so I'll take the time necessary to do it. We just work a little harder. It will work.

297: 3419:

Related to that, sir -- it may be spelled out in here, I'm not sure, but when you say you make the final decision, is your final decision subject to review by the secretary, perhaps, or anyone else?

376:

Several participants have questioned how Guantanamo captives were not really different from ordinary convicted felons. I believe this is a serious misconception, which I have addressed at length.

1709:

Third, my blessing of your actions in general should in no way be taken as an indication that I have retracted my assertion to OPPOSE you upon this specific nomination or the rationale provided. --

2575:

Disclaimer -- as the nominator has pointed out in multiple places, I started this article. But, contrary to nominators many suggestions, my contributions have completely complied with policy.

1919:

means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

191: 3955:(for independent secondary sources as is described above ad nauseam) and the decision could potentially effect numerous articles, I wouldn't be so hasty to close this AfD as a no consensus. 1789: 2246:

I note that every British or British-resident prisoner has been mentioned in British media, so it's reasonable to assume the same of all the others in relation to their national media. --

2967:

I asked, in the other forum, how "arm's length" OARDEC would have to be, before you considered it independent. Since you haven't addressed this question, I will repeat those questions.

2381:

This AfD seems to me to be going in a rather unique direction. The main question is whether there are or are not multiple verifiable sources to establish this individual's notability.

2319:

or something?) I always check local language sources when I put up an article for deletion. If you don't know how to do this, can we ask an Arabic speaker to do a Google check for us? --

1941:

If, for the sake of argument, the article did contain that kind of interpretation, the solution would be to remove or rewrite the offending passage, not to delete the entire article.

167: 4003:

Oh ffs...yes, and Geo_Swan hopes that the closing admins sees through it all and closes it as keep...I said to STOP the arguments, not take one last swing at looking like the genius.

162:) continuously creates these articles even after similar articles go through afd with the vast majority of them ending up as "no concensus", "redirect", or "delete". Some examples: 305: 301: 171: 4025:'s point above that the closing admin should focus the decision on this on policy. This will likely end up at DRV, so the need to ground a close in policy is all the more pressing. 3740:"It is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity. 2991:

What if OARDEC was run a civilian, who was served by a staff of temporarily detached military personnel, who officially reported to him or her, not to the military chain of command?

2738:

I disagree with your interpretation that the consensus was that OARDEC memos do not constitute independent, reliable sources. Do you have counter-arguments? If so, what are they.

337: 129: 145:

requires. This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage on this specific person. The refs provided are just a bunch of Army files were he is listed as a prisoner.

3280:

I guess what I mean by the question about whether you want to release more people, is there a sense that perhaps a lot of people are being held who should/could be released?

163: 4021:

per pretty much all the arguments made above for getting rid of this: esp the coatracking and bio issues that have been cited. And I would also indicate my agreement with

3645:

of independence are not in question; whether OARDEC reports constitute independent, reliable sources is the question. We should judge them to be independent because the

2101: 611:

comment on articles that have been nominated for discussion to read them with sufficient care that they don't make unsupportable claims about what those article contain.

333: 2761:. I would prefer you show me the same courtesy. IMO this material fully complies with policy. If you disagree, please be civil, please be serious, please be specific. 2604:

constitute independent, reliable sources. In other words, the main reasons that this article has been brought to AfD have not been addressed aside from opinions as per

3822:

I suggest that if respondent thinks OARDEC's bad reputation rivals FEMA's he or she is perfectly free to provide other references he or she thinks will provide balance.

3677:

Respondent seems to be suggesting that different agencies within the US government can not be separate agencies. Respondent disputes that OARDEC is not a third party.

1815:

No offense, but I think the argument that Guantanamo captives are just like other prisoners is based on misconceptions. I have had dialogs on this, and saved one here

317: 1122:

coverage (although I can't imagine that it doesn't). I stated that I can't see how an argument can be made that a person has recieved significant coverage required by

2425:

I agree that we should not be making assumptions - much better to get the facts straight. Can you clarify whether or not you have checked Arabic sources? Thanks. --

729:"A coatrack article is a Knowledge (XXG) article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." 2073: 325: 187: 3521:

Well, he said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable, your opinion that he is not independent is not verifiable.

3903:

I am trying to say. OARDEC has no reputation at all (be it good or bad) as an independent organization. Please stick to judging the article on its own merits.

96: 91: 341: 321: 1155:

I would still appreciate nominator, or anyone else, offering an explanation as to why the OARDEC memos do not fulfill the "significant" recommendation of the

992:(emphasis added) significant (in other words "substantial", but significant is actually a higher standard) coverage is actually the most important factor of 247:

I believe this nomination contains a number of misconceptions. I am addressing these misconceptions up here at the top, several days into the discussion.

100: 1637:. So all detainees (even those committing shockingly evil acts) can and are notable, even as individuals. In the same way, I would argue that everyone on 1071:-- Whether goverment documents are reliable sources or not (I don't see how they are, the US goverment isn't considered reliable) is a non-issue here. If 1454:

A closer look at the link provided reveals that, to the contrary, it is a basis for deletion. They are merely lists of detainees, and are a far cry from

83: 2616:, does not contain independent reliable sources (nor have any been found during this discussion), nor have our notability requirements been satisfied. 1862:, and after all these kilobytes of discussion there has yet to be provided one media source that discusses this person. The long talk of the lack of 982:

Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.

520:

Nominator asked where Sherurcij got the info about attending Osama bin Laden's law school? One of the allegations Ahmed Adnan Muhammed Ajam faced was

3294:

Charlie, I don't know. I mean, I have not looked at any of the cases, any of the files. I haven't looked at any of this because I really wanted to

2820:

that the reports were written with the oversight of a civilian official, but that's only half the story. The Designated Civilian Official (DCO) was

2559: 2731:

lack of further questions is a sign that the regular readers of that forum found the discussion with my well-informed correspondent convincing. If

488:. Please give relevant reasons for the non-deletion of the article. I don't know where you are getting your info about law school (is it a joke?).-- 2562:

the references this article uses are secondary sources, the references are fulfill all the requirements of the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

2015:

And, if, for the sake of argument, this article did contain passages that did not comply with the advice in this essay, it has a section entitled:

921:

ded this article. I am very sorry that I have to report that the nominator proved unwilling or unable to offer any kind of reply whatsoever.

2816:- if it is not currently under McGarrah's command, it was in the time period for which all the sources listed in the article were written. 1830:

Guantanamo captives aren't convicts. Less than twenty of them have even been charged with crimes. I think that is an important difference.

2890:

was promoted, to be a Deputy Secretary of Defense, he remained the DCO in charge of OARDEC. He wears multiple hats. It is a separate job.

2553:. As I stated above, IMO, nominator, and several contributors who voiced delete opinions have advanced arguments based on misconceptions. 3755:

But OARDEC has a completely different set of staff, from JTF-GTMO. The OARDEC staff report to the DCO, not to the Commandant of JTF-GTMO.

3796: 3179: 2821: 1598: 1410: 1858:

for distinguishing Guantanomo Bay detainees and other prisoners don't make or break Knowledge (XXG) notability policy. There must be

1703: 1664: 993: 17: 972: 426: 3641:

It was written above that "e said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable..." His

3482:

England, again, specifically assert that he makes the final decision -- that his decision is not subject to review by the Sec Def.

4282: 4217: 4172: 4124: 4072: 3988: 3631:: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." OARDEC is 3595: 2517: 2289: 2211: 2152: 2115: 1971: 1878: 1768: 1754:

The article has not been drastically rewritten. It merely has gotten some background information. The problem with the article -

1679: 1573: 1521: 1470: 1439: 1344: 1138: 1011: 767: 709: 626: 576: 496: 449: 231: 206: 828: 3724: 422: 159: 4286: 4265: 4227: 4200: 4182: 4155: 4134: 4103: 4082: 4051: 4034: 4007: 3998: 3964: 3944: 3924: 3862: 3668: 3605: 3530: 2836: 2774: 2625: 2584: 2527: 2494: 2479: 2449: 2434: 2416: 2373: 2338: 2328: 2299: 2255: 2237: 2215: 2188: 2162: 2125: 2088: 2062: 2035: 1981: 1953: 1938:

prohibits inserting that kind of conclusion in the article. And I don't believe the article makes any such interpolation.

1888: 1849: 1806: 1778: 1744: 1718: 1689: 1663:

is a basis for the non-deletion is a misapplication of Knowledge (XXG) policy. According to your logic, what the point of

1650: 1623: 1583: 1558: 1531: 1501: 1480: 1449: 1422: 1402: 1377: 1354: 1328: 1310: 1289: 1260: 1244: 1224: 1210: 1188: 1168: 1148: 1109: 1078: 1063: 1042: 1021: 930: 777: 751: 744: 719: 697:

are a matter of international concern but that has nothing to do with each prisoner. This article is a classic example of

694: 685: 677: 661: 636: 586: 558: 539: 515: 506: 477: 459: 404: 389: 371: 241: 216: 137: 65: 3628: 3043:. It is counter-intuitive, but us wikipedians are not allowed to insert things in articles, because we believe they are 969: 596:

actually read what your correspondents wrote, before you reply. Please reply to what your correspondents actually wrote.

4099: 2879: 1924:

I invite the nominator, or anyone else, to cite a passage from the article that they think represents original research.

1033:

guideline does not, after all, require that the significant coverage, or substantial coverage, be from a media source?

4301: 3890: 3723:

Respondent suggests that OARDEC's reliability has to be established before it can be considered a reliable source. The

1359:

Just for the record, my comment is not based on any misinterpretation. Reading the guideline by the letter, as you do,

36: 4278: 2025:"...extreme cases, when the nominal subject is barely notable and there is little chance the article can be salvaged." 3853:

the allegations to a source. This article does attribute the allegations to a source, a serious, official source.

1927:

The memos the article uses as references do refer to Ajam, directly, in detail. They refer to him by name, in fact.

1272:

Notability isn't established, toss his name on a list article if you want but not deserving of of his own article. -

543: 87: 3883:

Was OARDEC responsible for reviewing the case of the individual to determine whether he remains in captivity? Yes.

3889:

Although the burden of proof to proove the independent reliability should be on the article creater (or editors),

3228:"So first of all, thanks for being here. If we haven't met, I'm Gordon England. I'm the Secretary of the Navy. 2260: 976: 2199: 4300:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

1554: 1418: 1257: 1250: 1221: 1185: 1051: 602: 79: 71: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2758: 2754: 437:

that he not do that (so that I don't look stupid in responding nonsensically), but he chose to ignore me, and

658:"The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern." 4095: 4042:

Sources provided support notability. This is exactly the type of article we should have on Knowledge (XXG).

2915: 2857:

I dispute that I have rejected any civil argument made by BWH76 or any other participant in this discussion.

2276:. If he were to be treated like a regular US citizen - then the Syrian media might report it. 2- The Syrian 3175: 2020: 1896: 1960:

An argument proposing "significant coverage" to mean lack of original research doesn't require a response.

2735:

don't find it convincing, please offer a civil, reasoned explanation of why you don't find it convincing.

2023:-- remove or rewrite the troublesome passage. The essay specifically reserves article deletion only for 883:. These documents were drafted from multiple sources, by an independent agency. So I posted queries on 3880:

Has OARDEC been led by someone that is closely involved in the organization detaining this person? Yes.

49: 3550: 2396:

the subject of this article does not have multiple independent sources that focus specifically upon him

2202:. There is no significant coverage of this individual in his own right in reliable secondary sources. — 2016: 2007: 1998: 1867: 755: 724: 698: 3877:

Was OARDEC part of the same organization that is currently detaining the subject of the article? Yes.

3834:"OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources." 4222: 4177: 4129: 4077: 3993: 3600: 2522: 2294: 2207: 2157: 2120: 1976: 1883: 1773: 1714: 1684: 1646: 1578: 1565:

okay, but please explain how the link that you provided establishes that he's "Evidently notable". --

1526: 1475: 1444: 1349: 1143: 1016: 772: 714: 631: 581: 501: 454: 236: 211: 2750: 2605: 2386: 485: 4261: 2598:

discussion as to whether US military reports constitute independent reliable sources that you began

2475: 2430: 2324: 2251: 2184: 1943:(FWIW this is just an example. I have not come across any sources that suggest Ajam was tortured.) 1802: 1736: 1550: 1414: 1254: 1218: 1182: 1081:

process) has decided to write an article about him then its impossible to say that he has recieved

740: 673: 618:, I might read it more carefully. But his school attendance has no connection to his notability. -- 416: 4094:

due to participation (involuntary though it may be) in extraordinarily notable legal controversy.

2267:. (emphasis in original). All the reasons (i.e. original research) set forth here do not avail if 1739:, then this will make it a clear-cut "keep" case, rather than the debated status it currently has. 4164:

Why? Please state how you came to that conclusion using Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines. --

4047: 4030: 3858: 3526: 2977: 2770: 2580: 2490: 2445: 2084: 2058: 2031: 1949: 1845: 1497: 1398: 1373: 1324: 1306: 1240: 1164: 1105: 1059: 1038: 926: 554: 385: 367: 153: 4206: 3777:"OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has no reputation at all." 3102:

I am not trying to be offensive, but, I think, if you re-read everything you wrote above, after

754:

provides to prisoners is the reason for the non-deletion of the article. It doesn't get anymore

1638: 3800: 3786:

respondent is trying to say OARDEC has a bad reputation. Okay. Fine. What are your sources?

2824: 2572:

I addressed the misconception that Guantanamo captives are just like mundane convicted felons.

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3701:

reports. Is respondent questioning whether Parole Boards should be considered third parties?

3069: 1788:

This is one of 645 separate articles about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (the whole list is at

1611: 441:

his additions above my response. So please take note when reading the give and take below. --

2369: 4274: 4116:, which is notable enough for its own Knowledge (XXG) article. Does that make me notable?-- 3976: 3952: 3656: 3580: 3554: 3323: 3115: 3107: 3077: 3073: 3038: 2911:

I believe, if you look more closely, you will find that it is the official position of the

2742: 2613: 2404: 1902: 1660: 1634: 1603: 1489: 1459: 1390: 1316: 1298: 1214: 1156: 1123: 1115: 1093: 1086: 1030: 937: 892: 864: 804: 796: 785: 351: 142: 4240: 4212: 4167: 4119: 4067: 4022: 3983: 3960: 3920: 3664: 3590: 3587:

significant coverage means the lack of original research is a total waste of kilobytes. --

2832: 2621: 2512: 2412: 2308: 2284: 2203: 2147: 2110: 1966: 1873: 1763: 1710: 1674: 1642: 1619: 1607: 1568: 1516: 1465: 1434: 1339: 1281: 1133: 1006: 762: 704: 621: 571: 491: 444: 226: 201: 2708:

Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

1855: 3561:

you seems to be honored with)). The goverment documents stating the charges against him

4257: 4197: 4004: 3941: 3171: 3146:

verifiable authoritative sources that challenges the independence of the OARDEC agency.

2912: 2887: 2813: 2502: 2471: 2455: 2426: 2357: 2335: 2320: 2247: 2180: 1798: 1741: 736: 669: 512: 474: 412: 401: 3627:

difficult is to establish that they constitute independent, reliable sources. As the

3549:

Subjective intent might actually be important in trying to decipher whether this is a

4151: 4043: 4026: 3854: 3522: 3167:

Please see the Press Conference England gave when he announced taking up the new job:

2985: 2766: 2576: 2486: 2441: 2361: 2233: 2080: 2054: 2027: 1945: 1841: 1493: 1394: 1369: 1320: 1302: 1236: 1160: 1101: 1055: 1034: 922: 915: 550: 381: 363: 149: 60: 54: 3698: 286: 269: 255: 3799:, a US Federal Agency that was very severely criticized following its response to 829:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published

117: 3697:

Note: three days ago respondent compared the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos to

1315:

Please see above. I believe your comment is based on a misinterprtation of what

3971: 3951:

I'd generally agree that we're wasting time, but as the article doesn't satisfy

2741:

WRT your assertion that the article does not fulfill the recommendations of the

2365: 2273: 1866:

provided to these prisoners is further proof that the article was meant to be a

1863: 1176:

that it is. In particular, these accusations have not been established as being

689: 615: 279:. Unless there has been a recent policy change "no consensus" defaults to keep. 3803:. For a period of time FEMA was the butt of jokes, was very widely criticized. 3302:, balanced, as reasonable as we could, so we're putting the process together... 3176:"Special Defense Department Briefing with Secretary of The Navy Gordon England" 2002:-- Nominator keeps referring to Coatrack. So I re-acquainted myself with this 4113: 3956: 3916: 3891:

here is at least one person who believed the process/organization to be flawed

3683:

Is OARDEC responsible for the imprisonment of the captives in Guantanamo? No.

3660: 2828: 2631: 2617: 2408: 1615: 1273: 731:

however this article is focused (well or badly) completely on its subject. It

2263:(one of the five pillars): The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is 1702:

Second, nitpicking aside, I wish you God speed in fighting the good fight of

4064:, goverment documents can't be used as sources that establish notability. -- 2981: 2886:(OARDEC) is not one of the duties of the Secretary of the Navy. Note, when 871:. I urge anyone who thinks it does to go back and re-read it for themselves. 4147: 2942: 2228: 653: 3623:

of the OARDEC reports is verifiable; they obviously were written. What

668:

failings, but I don't think they should be deleted on these grounds. --

2630:

You assert that my queries on secondary sources netted no replies? On

1181:

detainees, does not appear to be "significant coverage" of his case. --

905: 889:

WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

3296:

put a process together that was independent of the people themselves.

2878:

I suggest that if you look more closely you will find that being the

2565:

I addressed the nominator's concern that media coverage was required.

2316: 1077:

media outlet (and there are plenty that are riled up about the whole

875: 511:

Try reading the article before proposing it for deletion next time.

2048:

list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions

2988:, with a staff of civilians, would you consider it "arm's length". 2407:, independent reliable sources, nor our notability requirements. 1100:

coverage then please cite the specific passage that states this.

251:

I believe the nominator is mistaken to conflate previously closed

2970:

If OARDEC was run by the UN would you consider it "arm's length"?

2884:

Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants

1936:"...and no original research is needed to extract the content..." 1513:

is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --

1336:

is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --

891:

I encourage anyone who doubts the sources comply with policy and

4294:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3110:, and making an argument about what "common sense" tells you is 2634: 2608:. We're running around in circles on this AfD, but the article 1249:

I have reviewed those discussions and commented above and on my

908: 362:-- and says nothing about whether it should be media coverage. 2973:

If OARDEC was run by NATO would you consider it "arm's length"?

2019:. The advice in this essay is essentially the same as that in 793:"...This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage..." 945: 2139:

list of United States of America-related deletion discussions

962:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received

2637:

my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:

2334:

assumption we're talking about the same person) and forums.

431:

added to his rationale of his !vote after I responded to him

3886:

Is OARDEC an independent, reliable third-party source? No.

1393:. Why give the detainees more coverage than they deserve? 1368:

outside Knowledge (XXG), and is not a misinterpretation. --

1790:

Category: People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp

1488:

As above the preceding comment mischaracterizes what the

1229:

Please see my comments above. Please see discussions at

1633:

Knowledge (XXG) isn't paper and has no size constraints

3584: 3576: 2817: 2707: 2683: 2658: 2597: 2593: 1233: 1230: 1128:

not one media outlet had even mentioned him in passing!

901: 888: 885:

WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source?

884: 438: 434: 430: 124: 113: 109: 105: 4112:

Well, I live in, and participate with, the State of

4277:.We cannot be having articles for everyone detained. 664:

detainees being non-notable. The arrticles may have

601:

Three memos that summarized the allegations against

350:

The nominator initially seened to be asserting that

2757:. Now I have not accused you, or the nominator of 2600:appears to have the consensus that OARDEC files do 538:Anyone can find that allegation in the article and 3746:Guantanamo -- prior to the creation of the OARDEC. 1792:). Unless one operates under the assumption that 1213:does not establish that he himself is notable per 1817:Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs 1706:. Thank you for all that folks like yourself do. 1431:What do you mean by "merge" ? Merge into what? -- 904:the nominator to review those discussion back on 427:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines#Own comments 378:Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4304:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3571:The lack of secondary sources aside, there's no 2549:-- I seem to have neglected to explicitly state 2466:(to quote what you have written above) - but to 3832: 3775: 3738: 3328:-- The process is said to fair and independent. 3015:You are free to hold this opinion, in private. 1958: 1914: 867:guideline says nothing about a requirement for 525: 3795:Let's return to the EPA. No, let's pick the 2102:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 8: 3230:But I'm not with you in that capacity today. 2385:that there must be sources is an example of 1092:If you are going to keep asserting that the 4248:. You are not in a law court and you can't 2594:discussion you started on secondary sources 2501:This is funny, were busy deciphering what 2074:list of Syria-related deletion discussions 3688:Then, by definition, it is a third party. 2305:The official language of Syria is Arabic. 2269:not one media source on him can be found. 1893:Nominator has mispoke in referring to a 3680:Is OARDEC imprisoned in Guantanamo? No. 3583:doesn't require significant coverage or 3200: 2701: 2652: 2137:: This debate has been included in the 2100:: This debate has been included in the 2072:: This debate has been included in the 2046:: This debate has been included in the 822: 4252:explanations from people - and yes, it 3104:"...but that's only half the story..." 1029:-- are you now acknowledging that the 874:Some challengers have stated that the 656:pointed out about a similar article: 3849:Nor should we. What we should do is 3298:I wanted to make sure we had as fair 2454:Thank you, but let's not change what 1704:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for Deletion 1665:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for Deletion 994:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for Deletion 735:discuss Guantanamo Bay in general. -- 533:in Kandahar owned by Usama bin Laden. 282:The nominator forgot to list similar 136:You have to be crazy to say that the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2464:"5-50 web search results in google" 3797:Federal Emergency Management Agency 3300:a process, fair as we could make it 3180:United States Department of Defense 2174:about the Guantanamo Bay detainees 895:to take a look at those discussion. 4256:harassment what you were doing. -- 3619:- The question is not whether the 2686:. And my correspondent concluded. 936:This box sits right on top of the 24: 3629:reliable sources guideline states 1897:Knowledge (XXG) notability policy 841:, and independent of the subject. 3106:-- you may see you are ignoring 949: 3974:, and closes this afd applying 3725:Environmental Protection Agency 2006:. It describes seven types of 3636:subject's future in captivity. 3391:Another claim of independence. 568:notability of this subject. -- 1: 3899:Please do not write what you 2261:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1641:is notable on wikipedia. -- 1211:Guantanamo Bay detention camp 784:Nominator's assertions about 752:Guantanamo Bay detention camp 695:Guantanamo Bay detention camp 686:Guantanamo Bay detention camp 138:Guantanamo Bay detention camp 3563:can in no way be considered 2880:Designated Civilian Official 1549:obvious basis for a search. 869:"substantial media coverage" 356:"substantial media coverage" 148:The creator of this article 4146:. I think he is notable. -- 2765:imagine my motives to be. 2278:secular goverment-run media 693:the issues surrounding the 4321: 4287:08:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4266:10:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4228:07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4201:07:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4183:07:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4156:06:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4135:05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4104:05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4083:05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4052:22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 4035:18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 4008:01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3999:00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3965:23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3945:23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3925:17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3863:16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3712:I have addressed elsewhere 3669:09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3649:they are independent? No. 3606:19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3531:00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3500:paraphrased you correctly? 3325:"Verifiability, not truth" 3121:"verifiability, not truth" 3040:"verifiability, not truth" 2837:18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 2775:17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 2626:06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 2585:05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 2528:19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 2495:13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2480:12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2450:11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2435:00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2417:23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 2374:06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 2339:06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 2329:02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 2300:01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 2256:23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 2238:23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 2216:09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2189:03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2163:02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 2126:02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 2089:22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2063:22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2036:00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2021:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 2017:What to do about coatracks 1982:02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 1954:23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1889:22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1850:22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1807:20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1779:20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1758:- has yet to be rectified. 1745:20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1719:21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1690:16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1651:15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1624:15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1584:19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 1559:10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 1532:17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1502:17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1481:17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1450:21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1423:15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1403:14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1378:13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1355:17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1329:16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1311:12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1290:08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1261:02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 1245:16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1225:05:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1189:02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 1169:22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1149:21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1110:21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1064:20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1043:20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1022:17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 931:16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 778:05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 745:04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 720:04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 678:04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 637:19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 606:long. These memos aren't 587:17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 559:17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 516:09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 507:04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 478:21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 460:20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 405:04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 390:17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 372:17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 242:23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 217:03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 66:21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 2558:As per the discussion in 2485:links to some of them. -- 1052:Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam 795:-- the nomination claims 603:Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam 544:on page 93 of this source 540:on page 84 of this source 527:The detainee stayed at a 80:Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam 72:Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam 4297:Please do not modify it. 3551:Knowledge (XXG):Coatrack 3249:In other words DCO is a 2976:If OARDEC was run by a " 2822:US Secretary of the Navy 2684:offered a detailed reply 2507:where are the websites?? 2313:"Syrian-language media" 2265:verifiability, not truth 1756:unestablished notability 1606:and I also see merit in 957:This page in a nutshell: 425:) in clear violation of 32:Please do not modify it. 3710:I have problems, which 2882:(DCO) in charge of the 2596:had no responses. The 2311:: when you referred to 1737:s:Wikisource:Guantanamo 1492:guideline recommends. 911:-- when they initially 789:misquote the guideline. 4279:Pharaoh of the Wizards 3836: 3779: 3742: 2315:were you referring to 1962: 1921: 1917:"Significant coverage" 1114:I never asserted that 801:"substantial coverage" 535: 360:"substantial coverage" 141:about the person that 3447:So what you say goes. 881:are secondary sources 292:which were closed as 50:Amnesty International 3831:Respondent asserts: 3774:Respondent asserts: 3737:Respondent asserts: 3573:significant coverage 1934:I think the phrase: 1860:significant coverage 1511:Significant coverage 1458:that is required by 1456:substantial coverage 1366:significant coverage 1334:Significant coverage 1253:per your request. -- 1083:significant coverage 1027:Clarification please 965:significant coverage 275:that were closed as 261:that were closed as 3647:head of OARDEC says 1118:guideline requires 1096:guideline requires 1069:Clarification given 791:Nomination states: 4096:Minos P. Dautrieve 2978:Special Prosecutor 2458:wrote. He/she did 1319:states. Cheers! 1003:any notability. -- 833:material which is 3915:repeatedly above. 3801:Hurricane Katrina 3488: 3487: 3467: 3466: 3376: 3375: 3308: 3307: 3251:separate position 3174:(June 23, 2008). 2715: 2714: 2667: 2666: 2560:WP:RS/Noticeboard 2165: 2142: 2128: 2105: 2091: 2077: 2065: 2051: 2008:Typical coatracks 1944: 1597:as per nom. The 1411:Evidently notable 989: 988: 973:secondary sources 848: 847: 837:, intellectually 807:actually says is: 688:provides for the 358:. It recommends 64: 4312: 4299: 4220: 4215: 4175: 4170: 4127: 4122: 4075: 4070: 3991: 3986: 3598: 3593: 3409: 3408: 3346: 3345: 3270: 3269: 3201: 3189: 3187: 3186: 3118:says we aim for 2702: 2653: 2520: 2515: 2468:"5-50 websites" 2292: 2287: 2155: 2150: 2143: 2133: 2118: 2113: 2106: 2096: 2078: 2068: 2052: 2042: 1974: 1969: 1942: 1881: 1876: 1771: 1766: 1682: 1677: 1639:Schindler's list 1599:above ghits link 1576: 1571: 1524: 1519: 1473: 1468: 1442: 1437: 1347: 1342: 1286: 1278: 1141: 1136: 1014: 1009: 953: 952: 946: 920: 914: 902:I politely asked 831:secondary source 823: 770: 765: 712: 707: 660:I can't see any 629: 624: 614:If it weren't a 579: 574: 499: 494: 452: 447: 291: 285: 274: 268: 260: 254: 234: 229: 209: 204: 127: 121: 103: 58: 44:The result was 34: 4320: 4319: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4302:deletion review 4295: 4218: 4213: 4209:. Thank you. -- 4173: 4168: 4125: 4120: 4073: 4068: 4023:User:Brewcrewer 3989: 3984: 3596: 3591: 3555:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 3461:That's correct. 3184: 3182: 3170: 2518: 2513: 2290: 2285: 2200:WP:NOTINHERITED 2153: 2148: 2116: 2111: 1972: 1967: 1911:. And it says: 1879: 1874: 1769: 1764: 1680: 1675: 1574: 1569: 1544:What I mean by 1522: 1517: 1471: 1466: 1440: 1435: 1345: 1340: 1282: 1274: 1139: 1134: 1012: 1007: 985: 979:of the subject. 950: 918: 912: 768: 763: 710: 705: 627: 622: 577: 572: 497: 492: 450: 445: 289: 283: 272: 266: 258: 252: 232: 227: 207: 202: 123: 94: 78: 75: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4318: 4316: 4307: 4306: 4290: 4289: 4268: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4159: 4158: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4107: 4106: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4055: 4054: 4037: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 3948: 3947: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3897: 3894: 3887: 3884: 3881: 3878: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3837: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3780: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3681: 3672: 3671: 3651: 3650: 3638: 3637: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3569: 3558: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3457: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3443: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3429: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3415: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3366: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3352: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3290: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3276: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3213: 3212: 3207: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3172:Gordon England 3168: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2974: 2971: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2888:Gordon England 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2825:Gordon England 2814:James McGarrah 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2762: 2759:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2755:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2747: 2739: 2736: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2612:does not meet 2573: 2570: 2566: 2563: 2555: 2554: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2420: 2419: 2376: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2241: 2240: 2219: 2218: 2192: 2191: 2167: 2166: 2131: 2129: 2094: 2092: 2066: 2039: 2038: 2012: 2011: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1939: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1912: 1838: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1810: 1809: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1707: 1700: 1693: 1692: 1668: 1654: 1653: 1627: 1626: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1562: 1561: 1551:Colonel Warden 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1452: 1426: 1425: 1415:Colonel Warden 1405: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1357: 1292: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1255:Metropolitan90 1251:user talk page 1219:Metropolitan90 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1183:Metropolitan90 1173: 1172: 1171: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1079:Guantanamo Bay 1049: 1045: 997: 990: 987: 986: 984: 983: 980: 959: 954: 943: 896: 872: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 846: 845: 844: 843: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 781: 780: 681: 680: 662:Guantanamo Bay 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 598: 597: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 547: 536: 522: 521: 482: 481: 480: 465: 464: 463: 462: 394: 393: 392: 374: 348: 280: 263:"no consensus" 245: 220: 134: 133: 74: 69: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4317: 4305: 4303: 4298: 4292: 4291: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4269: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4237: 4229: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4221: 4216: 4208: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4199: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4184: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4176: 4171: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4142: 4141: 4136: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4128: 4123: 4115: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4090: 4089: 4084: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4076: 4071: 4063: 4060:As mentioned 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4038: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4017: 4016: 4009: 4006: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3992: 3987: 3979: 3978: 3973: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3949: 3946: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3902: 3898: 3895: 3892: 3888: 3885: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3838: 3835: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3785: 3781: 3778: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3744: 3741: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3726: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3713: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3687: 3682: 3679: 3678: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3653: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3607: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3599: 3594: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3567: 3566: 3559: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3456: 3455:SEC. ENGLAND: 3453: 3452: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3442: 3439: 3438: 3433:No, it's not. 3432: 3431: 3430: 3428: 3427:SEC. ENGLAND: 3425: 3424: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3365: 3364:SEC. ENGLAND: 3362: 3361: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3351: 3348: 3347: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3289: 3288:SEC. ENGLAND: 3286: 3285: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3275: 3272: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3252: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3231: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3211: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3202: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3123: 3122: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2990: 2987: 2986:Leon Jaworski 2983: 2979: 2975: 2972: 2969: 2968: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2944: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2917: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2812:Rear Admiral 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2793: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2763: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2737: 2734: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2545: 2544: 2529: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2516: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2377: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2352: 2351: 2340: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2293: 2288: 2279: 2275: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2230: 2224: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2177: 2172: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2151: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2130: 2127: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1975: 1970: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1904: 1900: 1898: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1882: 1877: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1772: 1767: 1759: 1757: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1678: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1610:argument for 1609: 1605: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1585: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1577: 1572: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1547: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1533: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1520: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1474: 1469: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1438: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1409: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1385: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1343: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1291: 1287: 1285: 1279: 1277: 1271: 1268: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1137: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1046: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1010: 1002: 998: 995: 991: 981: 978: 974: 971: 967: 966: 961: 960: 958: 955: 948: 947: 944: 941: 939: 934: 933: 932: 928: 924: 917: 910: 907: 903: 900: 897: 894: 890: 886: 882: 877: 873: 870: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 842: 840: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 824: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 787: 783: 782: 779: 776: 775: 774: 771: 766: 757: 753: 748: 747: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 723: 722: 721: 718: 717: 716: 713: 708: 700: 696: 691: 687: 683: 682: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 648: 647: 638: 635: 634: 633: 630: 625: 617: 613: 612: 609: 604: 600: 599: 595: 594: 590: 589: 588: 585: 584: 583: 580: 575: 566: 560: 556: 552: 548: 545: 541: 537: 534: 532: 531: 530:legal college 524: 523: 519: 518: 517: 514: 510: 509: 508: 505: 504: 503: 500: 495: 487: 483: 479: 476: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 461: 458: 457: 456: 453: 448: 440: 436: 432: 428: 424: 421: 418: 414: 411: 408: 407: 406: 403: 399: 396: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 288: 281: 278: 271: 264: 257: 250: 249: 248: 244: 243: 240: 239: 238: 235: 230: 219: 218: 215: 214: 213: 210: 205: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 158: 155: 151: 146: 144: 139: 131: 126: 119: 115: 111: 107: 102: 98: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 76: 73: 70: 68: 67: 62: 57: 56: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4296: 4293: 4270: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4238: 4223:(yada, yada) 4211: 4210: 4205:Please stay 4178:(yada, yada) 4166: 4165: 4143: 4130:(yada, yada) 4118: 4117: 4091: 4078:(yada, yada) 4066: 4065: 4061: 4039: 4018: 3994:(yada, yada) 3982: 3981: 3975: 3937: 3900: 3850: 3840:allegations. 3833: 3783: 3776: 3739: 3699:Parole Board 3646: 3642: 3632: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3601:(yada, yada) 3589: 3588: 3572: 3564: 3562: 3454: 3440: 3426: 3412: 3363: 3349: 3324: 3299: 3295: 3287: 3273: 3250: 3229: 3209: 3205:England said 3204: 3183:. Retrieved 3120: 3119: 3111: 3103: 3044: 3039: 2791: 2732: 2609: 2601: 2589: 2550: 2546: 2523:(yada, yada) 2511: 2510: 2506: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2382: 2378: 2353: 2312: 2304: 2295:(yada, yada) 2283: 2282: 2277: 2268: 2264: 2227: 2222: 2195: 2175: 2170: 2158:(yada, yada) 2146: 2145: 2134: 2121:(yada, yada) 2109: 2108: 2097: 2069: 2043: 2024: 2003: 1996: 1977:(yada, yada) 1965: 1964: 1959: 1935: 1916: 1915: 1907: 1906: 1894: 1884:(yada, yada) 1872: 1871: 1859: 1793: 1785: 1774:(yada, yada) 1762: 1761: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1733: 1729: 1685:(yada, yada) 1673: 1672: 1661:WP:NOT#PAPER 1635:WP:NOT#PAPER 1630: 1608:Brewcrewer's 1594: 1579:(yada, yada) 1567: 1566: 1545: 1527:(yada, yada) 1515: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1485: 1476:(yada, yada) 1464: 1463: 1455: 1445:(yada, yada) 1433: 1432: 1407: 1389:for failing 1386: 1365: 1360: 1350:(yada, yada) 1338: 1337: 1333: 1294: 1283: 1275: 1269: 1235:. Cheers! 1205: 1177: 1159:guideline. 1144:(yada, yada) 1132: 1131: 1127: 1119: 1097: 1085:required by 1082: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1026: 1017:(yada, yada) 1005: 1004: 1000: 964: 963: 956: 935: 898: 880: 868: 838: 834: 830: 800: 792: 788: 773:(yada, yada) 761: 760: 732: 728: 715:(yada, yada) 703: 702: 665: 657: 649: 632:(yada, yada) 620: 619: 607: 592: 591: 582:(yada, yada) 570: 569: 529: 528: 526: 502:(yada, yada) 490: 489: 455:(yada, yada) 443: 442: 419: 409: 397: 359: 355: 293: 276: 262: 246: 237:(yada, yada) 225: 224: 221: 212:(yada, yada) 200: 199: 156: 147: 135: 53: 45: 43: 31: 28: 3972:filibusting 3565:INDEPENDANT 3081:verifiable. 2505:meant, but 2354:Strong Keep 2274:due process 1999:WP:COATRACK 1864:Due Process 977:independent 839:independent 756:WP:COATRACK 725:WP:COATRACK 699:WP:COATRACK 690:due process 616:red herring 608:"somewhere" 4241:Brewcrewer 4114:California 4062:ad nauseum 3643:assertions 3621:production 3210:my comment 3185:2008-03-26 2916:Presidency 2751:WP:ILIKEIT 2632:January 24 2606:WP:ILIKEIT 2387:WP:ILIKEIT 2309:Brewcrewer 2204:Snthdiueoa 2176:in general 1711:Firefly322 1643:Firefly322 1546:Keep/merge 1408:Keep/merge 486:WP:ILIKEIT 439:reinserted 4258:Kleinzach 4246:respected 4198:Sherurcij 4005:Sherurcij 3942:Sherurcij 3851:attribute 3553:and/or a 2982:Ken Starr 2946:JTF-GTMO. 2818:You wrote 2660:effort... 2503:Sherurcij 2472:Kleinzach 2462:refer to 2456:Sherurcij 2427:Kleinzach 2364:Regards, 2358:Kleinzach 2336:Sherurcij 2321:Kleinzach 2248:Kleinzach 2181:Mandsford 1931:tortured. 1908:guideline 1840:Cheers! 1827:coverage. 1799:Mandsford 1742:Sherurcij 975:that are 799:requires 737:Kleinzach 670:Kleinzach 549:Cheers! 513:Sherurcij 475:Sherurcij 435:requested 413:Sherurcij 402:Sherurcij 354:requires 4239:Note to 4207:WP:CIVIL 4044:Alansohn 4027:Eusebeus 3855:Geo Swan 3813:critics? 3728:publish. 3523:Geo Swan 2943:JTF-GTMO 2767:Geo Swan 2577:Geo Swan 2487:Minimaki 2442:Minimaki 2400:hundreds 2391:Assuming 2383:Assuming 2362:Geo Swan 2212:contribs 2081:Geo Swan 2055:Geo Swan 2028:Geo Swan 1946:Geo Swan 1905:it is a 1901:. Like 1868:coatrack 1842:Geo Swan 1494:Geo Swan 1395:ArcAngel 1370:Minimaki 1361:coverage 1321:Geo Swan 1303:Minimaki 1237:Geo Swan 1161:Geo Swan 1102:Geo Swan 1056:Geo Swan 1035:Geo Swan 970:reliable 923:Geo Swan 835:reliable 803:. What 684:How the 551:Geo Swan 423:contribs 382:Geo Swan 364:Geo Swan 277:"delete" 160:contribs 150:Geo Swan 130:View log 3938:Comment 3765:party". 3617:Comment 3070:WP:NPOV 2792:Comment 2590:Comment 2379:Comment 2171:Comment 1856:reasons 1750:Comment 1730:Comment 1612:WP:COAT 1074:not one 906:March 7 733:doesn't 97:protect 92:history 4275:WP:BIO 4273:Fails 4271:Delete 4250:demand 4219:crewer 4174:crewer 4126:crewer 4074:crewer 4019:Delete 3990:crewer 3977:WP:BIO 3953:WP:BLP 3657:WP:BLP 3597:crewer 3581:WP:BIO 3575:. The 3116:WP:VER 3112:"true" 3108:WP:VER 3078:WP:VER 3074:WP:NOR 3045:"true" 2743:WP:BIO 2614:WP:BIO 2519:crewer 2405:WP:BIO 2366:Huldra 2317:Syriac 2291:crewer 2196:Delete 2154:crewer 2117:crewer 1973:crewer 1903:WP:BIO 1880:crewer 1786:Delete 1770:crewer 1681:crewer 1659:Using 1604:WP:BIO 1595:Delete 1575:crewer 1523:crewer 1490:WP:BIO 1472:crewer 1460:WP:BIO 1441:crewer 1391:WP:BIO 1387:Delete 1346:crewer 1317:WP:BIO 1299:WP:BIO 1297:Fails 1295:Delete 1270:Delete 1258:(talk) 1222:(talk) 1215:WP:BIO 1206:Delete 1186:(talk) 1178:either 1157:WP:BIO 1140:crewer 1124:WP:BIO 1116:WP:BIO 1094:WP:BIO 1087:WP:BIO 1031:WP:BIO 1013:crewer 1001:he has 938:WP:BIO 893:WP:BIO 876:OARDEC 865:WP:BIO 805:WP:BIO 797:WP:BIO 786:WP:BIO 769:crewer 727:says: 711:crewer 628:crewer 593:Please 578:crewer 542:, and 498:crewer 451:crewer 352:WP:BIO 294:"keep" 233:crewer 208:crewer 143:WP:BIO 125:delete 101:delete 46:Delete 3957:BWH76 3917:BWH76 3911:here. 3901:think 3784:think 3661:BWH76 3579:that 3577:claim 2980:", a 2829:BWH76 2746:they? 2618:BWH76 2610:still 2409:BWH76 2004:essay 1616:BWH76 1507:Wrong 1486:Note: 1276:Jahnx 1126:when 1120:media 1098:media 899:Note: 666:other 265:with 128:) – ( 118:views 110:watch 106:links 61:Help! 16:< 4283:talk 4262:talk 4214:brew 4169:brew 4152:talk 4144:Keep 4121:brew 4100:talk 4092:Keep 4069:brew 4048:talk 4040:Keep 4031:talk 3985:brew 3980:. -- 3961:talk 3921:talk 3907:AfD. 3859:talk 3665:talk 3592:brew 3585:that 3527:talk 2984:, a 2919:Def. 2913:Bush 2833:talk 2771:talk 2749:WRT 2635:2008 2622:talk 2592:The 2581:talk 2569:him. 2551:keep 2547:keep 2514:brew 2491:talk 2476:talk 2470:. -- 2446:talk 2431:talk 2413:talk 2370:talk 2360:and 2356:pr 2325:talk 2286:brew 2252:talk 2234:talk 2223:Keep 2208:talk 2198:per 2185:talk 2149:brew 2135:Note 2112:brew 2098:Note 2085:talk 2070:Note 2059:talk 2044:Note 2032:talk 1997:WRT 1968:brew 1950:talk 1875:brew 1870:. -- 1854:The 1846:talk 1803:talk 1765:brew 1715:talk 1699:one. 1676:brew 1647:talk 1631:Keep 1620:talk 1570:brew 1555:talk 1518:brew 1498:talk 1467:brew 1462:. -- 1436:brew 1419:talk 1399:talk 1374:talk 1341:brew 1325:talk 1307:talk 1284:talk 1241:talk 1217:. -- 1165:talk 1135:brew 1106:talk 1060:talk 1039:talk 1008:brew 940:page 927:talk 916:prod 909:2008 887:and 863:The 764:brew 741:talk 706:brew 701:. -- 674:talk 650:Keep 623:brew 573:brew 555:talk 493:brew 484:See 446:brew 433:. I 429:has 417:talk 410:Note 398:Keep 386:talk 368:talk 228:brew 203:brew 154:talk 114:logs 88:talk 84:edit 4254:was 4148:SJK 3659:. 3633:not 3114:. 2733:you 2602:not 2460:not 2389:. 2229:DGG 2141:. 2104:. 2076:. 2050:. 1794:all 1614:. 968:in 654:DGG 652:As 380:. 287:afd 270:afd 256:afd 55:Guy 4285:) 4264:) 4154:) 4102:) 4050:) 4033:) 3963:) 3923:) 3861:) 3782:I 3667:) 3625:is 3529:) 3178:. 3076:, 3072:, 2835:) 2773:) 2682:I 2624:) 2583:) 2509:-- 2493:) 2478:) 2448:) 2433:) 2415:) 2372:) 2327:) 2281:-- 2254:) 2236:) 2214:) 2187:) 2087:) 2061:) 2034:) 1963:-- 1952:) 1848:) 1805:) 1760:-- 1752:. 1732:, 1717:) 1671:-- 1649:) 1622:) 1557:) 1509:. 1500:) 1421:) 1413:. 1401:) 1376:) 1327:) 1309:) 1288:) 1243:) 1167:) 1130:-- 1108:) 1089:. 1062:) 1041:) 929:) 919:}} 913:{{ 759:-- 743:) 676:) 557:) 388:) 370:) 346:13 344:, 342:12 340:, 338:11 336:, 334:10 332:, 328:, 324:, 320:, 316:, 312:, 308:, 304:, 300:, 296:: 290:}} 284:{{ 273:}} 267:{{ 259:}} 253:{{ 198:-- 194:, 190:, 186:, 182:, 178:, 174:, 170:, 166:, 116:| 112:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 52:. 4281:( 4260:( 4150:( 4098:( 4046:( 4029:( 3959:( 3919:( 3893:. 3857:( 3663:( 3568:. 3557:. 3525:( 3441:Q 3413:Q 3350:Q 3274:Q 3188:. 3124:. 3047:. 2831:( 2769:( 2620:( 2579:( 2489:( 2474:( 2444:( 2429:( 2411:( 2368:( 2323:( 2307:( 2250:( 2232:( 2210:| 2206:( 2183:( 2144:— 2107:— 2083:( 2079:— 2057:( 2053:— 2030:( 1948:( 1899:" 1895:" 1844:( 1819:. 1801:( 1713:( 1667:? 1645:( 1618:( 1553:( 1496:( 1417:( 1397:( 1372:( 1323:( 1305:( 1280:( 1239:( 1232:, 1163:( 1104:( 1058:( 1037:( 996:. 942:: 925:( 739:( 672:( 553:( 546:. 420:· 415:( 384:( 366:( 330:9 326:8 322:7 318:6 314:5 310:4 306:3 302:2 298:1 196:9 192:8 188:7 184:6 180:5 176:4 172:3 168:2 164:1 157:· 152:( 132:) 122:( 120:) 82:( 63:) 59:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam - Knowledge (XXG)

Index