Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azimullah (detainee)


 * 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) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Azimullah (detainee)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. Apart from one paragraph on the website of Andy Worthington, after his repatriation, he hasn't received significant attention in reliable independent sources. A contentious BLP, almost purely based on dcuments by a party in his detainment, tagged for neutrality problems for over a year. Note that it is unclear what "Sultan Sari Sayel al Anazi", mentioned in the lead since December 2009, has to do with Azimullah. Fram (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - article relies almost exclusively on primary source documents and lacks "significant independent coverage". As such it is non-notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: unfortunately, I do not think that the subject is sufficiently notable for a biographical article per WP:BLP1E. This is highlighted by the sourcing which seem mainly to be primary documents. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I request relisting. The first assertion in the nomination "Apart from one paragraph on the website of Andy Worthington, after his repatriation, he hasn't received significant attention in reliable independent sources." -- it is simply incorrect.  I request additional time to address the issues raised by nominator.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Anotherclown and AustralianRupert. IQinn (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2011 (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.