Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsanullah (Guantanamo detainee 350)


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ehsanullah (Guantanamo detainee 350)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. One article gives him three sentences and a photo. No other reliable secondary sources are available (e.g. the Andy Worthington source given doesn't even mention Ehsanullah). Google News Archives gives no results for Ehsanullah Guantanamo, even though there were two different detainees with the same name. The only Google books result may be about this Ehsanullah, or the other one, so it isn't really useful either. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being a Detainee does not denote automatic notability. Subject is not covered by secondary sources, and fails notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect The sources are reliable to verify the material in the article. I continue to think that every identifiable Gitmo prisoner is and will remain notable, but from previous AfDs I rather doubt there is consensus on that, & I suggest a redirection/merge to an appropriate list or combination article.   DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - like most of these articles the subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under WP:GNG. Over course there is no reason why some of the information couldn't be included in List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, but its not suitable for a stand alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per 3 secondary sources. But more importantly, keep per WP:PRIMARY A phrase that quotes a prosecutor as saying the accused killed the victim can be extracted from his cross-examination, given sufficiently OR or POV reporting; that is the sole reason that trial records are to be used with care. Not really that difficult to avoid, when it comes down to it. N and GNG have treated primary sources as though they were radioactive for far too long, PRIMARY itself shows little of that squeamishness. Primary sources such as government documents are the most reliable source of information on what the government bodies that created those reports said in them, and replicating their information is OR-proof in today's heavily patrolled WP editing environment. There is little chance of OR or POV entering the article through those reports, and zero chance of OR remaining in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually i count only 2 secondary sources but 2 or 3 does not really matter. The point is none of them provide enough information on the subject of this biography what would add up to "significant coverage". "Keep per WP:PRIMARY" You must be kidding. Primary sources do not count towards notability under WP:GNG. Are you talking about the OARDEC / JTF-GTMO documents when speaking about reliable and no problems with OR? You must be kidding again. These are the most unreliable primary sources on earth and nothing can be taken from them directly without OR. They are not courts document. Prosecutor? There is no court, no prosecutor no judge here. He has never been tried nor charged with anything. Bottom line OARDEC / JTF-GTMO documents are unreliable primary sources that do not count towards notability under WP:GNG and the few secondary sources do not add up to "Significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Yachtsman1, Anotherclown fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 05:50, 23 February 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.