Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boudella el Hajj


 * 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   Keep per consensus and attempted withdrawal of nomination by originator. (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Boudella el Hajj
sorry for the misunderstanding.''' JeanLatore (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. He's like the natalie holloway of the war on terror; his individual bio is irrelevant to the larger forces at play here. JeanLatore (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, wp:blp1e. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this man's main claim to fame is that he is one of the numerous Guantanamo detainees, he doesn't have much of a claim to fame. At least not enough to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have to disagree, his case seems to have created considerable concern in Bosnia and her wife has made a campaign that seems quite notable for him (she's been interviewed by Germany's most weekly, it seems, Dar Spiegel). Also, interest has often resurfaced, judging it by google news. He's certainly more notable than most Quantano innmates; as for the nominator's motivation, calling it weak is quite an understatement.--Aldux (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of the Guantanamo Bay detainees have articles - see List of Guantánamo Bay detainees. That's not a comment on this particular article, nor an invocation of WP:OSE, just an observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, while convincing arguments have been made in the past in favour of deleting some articles about detainees in the war on terror, el-Hajj seems to be generating both English and non-English media attention justifying notability, and has plenty of federal government documents justifying verifiability. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has received considerable coverage in reliable sources. Which is the standard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While I continue to believe the majority of the detainee articles should be merged; the evidence Aldux found indicates that this is one of the ones who merits an individual article. The current article, however, does not evidence that, and I hope that Aldux will actually go improve the article.  GRBerry 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you hope that the article will be improved then why don't you do it rather than demand that someone else does the work? Aldux has already shown you where to find the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even the most cursory news search would have turned up significant external coverage in English - not counting the considerable Bosnian and Arabic coverage of this man. This is a question you should be asking the nominator, not me. In any case, I've added significant coverage to external links. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't ask you. I asked GRBerry in response to the statement "I hope that Aldux will actually go improve the article". I agree that the same question could be asked of the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably almost all the detainees will eventually have the sources found for individual articles, once the national sources for their countries of origin are investigated. enough has been found already for this particular article. Given what's been shown, I urge the nom. to withdraw the afd. DGG (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2008 (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.