Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gholam Ruhani


 * 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   redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Gholam Ruhani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

On a living Guantanamo prisoner. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84)  D Big X ray   11:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Another Guantanamo article which fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable subject that passes WP:GNG- Was the subject of a fairly deep Washington Post article detailing his capture and detainment. Additional details and writings about him from the AP, and the Miami Herald show continued, significant coverage. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject of WP article was "Guantanamo prison and prisoners imprisoned since 5 years", and it mentions Ruhani's case along with few others while talking about the prison. There is a difference.
 * Also, how a two line statement by the subject is equivalent to significant coverage is beyond my understanding-- D Big X ray  14:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay - fails WP:BLP1E, no significant coverage - only passing mentions. Suitiable for inclusion in the list, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay; multiple passing mentions of the subject, but nothing that I would consider significant coverage per WP:GNG. The Washington Post article linked by Joshuaism, had several paragraphs about the subject, however in reading the total article (3 pages) the main coverage was about the group of long-term unlawful combatants as a whole, and spoke of others in the group, but none that I would consider significantly; therefore, the subject of the article being considered is not the primary subject of the source. Additionally, the AP article gives a one paragraph brief of each unlawful combatant being held from Afghanistan, but one paragraph does not significant coverage make, IMHO. That being said the group of detainees are notable, not necessarily the individual members of said group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Despite claims to the contrary above we actually know very little about the subject of this article becausethe coverage of the subject isn't signficant at all. Not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Too little coverage by secondary reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Given that the creator of this article has created what appears to be dozens or more likely hundreds similar articles on manifestly non-notable individuals that are currently sitting in mainspace and need to be deleted, the "merge" option is unrealistic here. Nobody has the time to sift through this mountain of obscure non-notable material and figure out what and how and where may be merged here. It should simply be deleted, period. Nsk92 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - BLP1E. Being detained, even in Gitmo, is not a notable event.  Subject fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2012 (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.