Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Wahab (detainee)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab (detainee)

Abdul Wahab (detainee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD. Subject of the article appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Transparent attempt at
  the project is to just delete anything that embarrasses the U.S. government, go right ahead. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment You surprise me. 1) Could you please explain how the article "embarrasses the U.S. government"? 2) Well you are free to accuse other editors of bad faith but i do not think that an Afd would be the right place to discuss this? How about ANI or RFC/U? 3} Just to remind you, accusation of bad faith does not invalid the arguments the nominator gave for deletion so any uninvolved admin would closes this debate here as "delete" as he/she would ignore your !vote? As it looks like you want to keep the article wouldn't it better to address the policy based arguments the nominator gave for deletion? - IQinn (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the original
  reliable sources. I'd probably be happy to go along with redirecting this to a list (if one exists) of the detainees, but I can't see that this guy warrants his own article. All of that notwithstanding, Kendrick7 shows a shocking display of bad faith - I'm not a troll, and I've had very few, if any dealings with User:Geo Swan. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Subject does not appear to pass
  WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete 'as not notable.Asnac (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: in my opinion, the subject lacks significant coverage as set out in the
  general notability guideline. The subject could possibly be mentioned in an overarching article on detainees or something similar, but I don't believe that there is enough for an independent biographical article. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nothing notable about this particular person.--Dmol (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.