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. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rais Mohammed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Subject appears to lack "signficant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is not notable under the general notability guidelines. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Bagram Theater Internment Facility#Captives reported to have been held in Bagram - that is absolutely where this material belongs. - KeptSouth (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & Redirect - Subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. What content is here, can be summarized and added to the list Bagram Theater Internment Facility#Captives reported to have been held in Bagram as stated by KeptSouth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. A merge/redirect might be acceptable if that is what concensus determines, but I'm a bit concerned about whether or not it might breach WP:UNDUE. For instance, we don't list every person every incarcerated in a specific jail, even if that jail has its own article. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously a real person, notable for being an extra-judicial tenant of the U.S. government. This kind of information is why Wikipedia was created. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was created by a large number of people and their vision is reflected in our policies. Being a "real person" or a detainee does not grant notability. This BLP fails WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7, under what policy do you claim the subject of this Afd is notable? Anotherclown (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject has been ascribed notability because he was mentioned in a Human Rights report. This is not nearly enough to meet the requriements for notability. The subject has clearly not been the subect of secondary source coverage. Being a Detainee, as has been explained on numerous occassions, does not make one notable, nor does being a "real person". --Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best he was notable for a single event, but in fact he isn't even notable for that. --Bejnar (talk) 03:08, 18 March 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.