Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alif Khan


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alif Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As best I can tell Alif Khan's claim to fame is that he was one of 66 people interviewed by a news organization that then wrote up his story. That just does not seem to be the kind of stuff that notability is made ofJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Alif Khan has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources satisfying WP:BASIC. In addition to the McClatchy News Service pieces already in the article he was a major focus of a longform BBC televison piece (transcript) and has also received significant coverage in several books exploring both the role of journalism Journalism: Critical Issues and the costs of counterterrorism policy The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep "As best I can tell" is either disingenuous or fails WP:CIR. Complying with BEFORE requires research that indicates that in fact, all the other Gitmo detainee articles lacked only a single third-party source, as per WP:WHYN #4. Arguably, and I will continue to argue this strenuously, only a crooked or inept wikilawyer would require a secondary source to determine whether detention at Gitmo was Original Research; everyone knows it happened, and who it happened to, and who made it happen. Nonetheless, even such weaseling is firmly restrained here, by the extensive work of McClatchy and the BBC. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (babble)  @ 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.