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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said Muhammad Husayn Qahtani

[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists, giving the same info. DBigXray 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request a relisting -- Sources do exist. Updating the article will probably take about 6 hours. It took about six hours to update Assem Matruq Mohammad al Aasmi. We are all volunteers here, and when it takes a whole day to address the concerns in a single ((afd)), and one finds mutliple ((afd)) being filed per day, it is simply not possible to keep up. Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have had more than a year to do something about these articles since the end of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. You didn't. You complained then about the too high frequency of AfD's, but the reality is that hundreds of articles you created have been deleted yet, and many more are still lingering around; giving you the time to do something hasn't got much (if any) effect, so you are now again confronted with multiple AfDs. You have delayed things more than enough already. Fram (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Insufficient discussion, BLP.

Delete - Primary sources, routine case details, does not satisfy WP:GNG. Sources simply do not exist for this or dozens of other worthless Gitmo stubs. Do not grant an extension of any sort, please. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG on its own. --Artene50 (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as the subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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