Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Hussein Ali Hassan

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 redirect to Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hussein Ali Hassan[edit]

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 14:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage found to suggest subject passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:SOLDIER.
Comment concerning another editor not assuming good faith of my comments during the previous AfD: I have certain delete sort pages on my watch list, and thus why I have commented on previous AfDs. I am not a member of a cabal and did not enjoy the accusation made towards me and other editors during the previous AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable source therefore is unlikely to be notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Guantanamo article which fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think smerger seems to be the best option, keeping some information and all the citations. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a section at Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, best solution to keep all available information when there isn't enough material for a standalone article. --Tachfin (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, merging as necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another non-notable article. Per nom, it clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:40, 16 August 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about whether a merge would be warranted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan's talk page is a remarkable sight. DBigXray, are you on some kind of one-editor cleanup crusade?—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person And I am very offended by your comment above, hope you will rephrase it following WP:CIVIL--DBig Xray 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, the last 26 items to Geo Swan's talk page are notifications of deletion discussions initiated by you. A very large number of other items on Geo Swan's talk page are also notifications of deletion discussions initiated by you. Whatever the cause of that might be, it's definitely not a coincidence. So it was reasonable of me to ask you how it might have come about. If you choose to be offended by that, then that's up to you, but taking offence was your choice. It was not uncivil of me to ask the question.
In this diff, which you added to my talk page rather than to this discussion, you claim that there is no issue or problem between you and Geo Swan. Which is, of course, good news and exactly what I wanted to hear. I see that Geo Swan is keeping track of your actions here, and I want to point out that it may be better to focus on some other part of the encyclopaedia for a little while after this. Focusing unduly on one contributor is potentially an issue.
And that's all I wanted to say. You can carry on being angry with me now if you like.—S Marshall T/C 20:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i am aware this page is for the discussion of the rationale for keeping, deleting, merging or redirecting this article, hence I had replied on your talk page, not here. I have also improved few of the Notable articles on Guantanamo prisoners, of course no one will appreciate that, but yes people will accuse you of starting Crusade when you find non-notable stubs which should have been never have been created in the first place. In any case, I do not have the authority to delete or keep a page, I have pointed a few problems its upto the community to decide what to do about it. now please address the article's notability not the nominator's character--DBig Xray 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Doesn't look like there's anything worth merging. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He's not obviously independently notable, but we should keep this content somewhere, so that seems like a good solution. Robofish (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E. Being detained, even in Gitmo, is not a notable event. Subject fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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