Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Searching for either Faiz Ullah or Faizullah did not return the necessary sources to establish notability for this BLP. The only independent source that gives him some attention is Andy Worthington, who has described all Guantanamo prisoners. Everything else are primary or non independent sources, or sources not about him but other people with a similar name, or more general sources. Fram (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom; fails WP:BLP, WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:GNG, and WP:BAHAD. Gosh, I never even knew that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp existed. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable other than be for being a detainee at Guantanamo, fails WP:MILMOS/N for lack of significant independent coverage. Anotherclown (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2010 (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.