Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulab 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gulab Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject doesn't merit a Wikipedia article being notable for one event. All coverage they have received as appear in the article are in relation or centric to their role in saving another soldier life, Marcus Luttrell who received good coverage and have had a movie and a book, so they have an article. But this one, it doesn't satisfy WP:BLP1E. At best, we may discuss merge or just delete. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * comment and delete I think it has just bit coverage for saving American navy seal like this . But if we see individually, he just appeared in "Lone Survivor" movie. No individual achievement or record found for this person in the present history. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 12:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've watched the movie and I can say that, "Lone Survivor" was all about Marcus Luttrell (the lone survivor, as the title depicts?) -not really "Gulab Khan". Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean.A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean.A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Searching for "Mohammad Gulab" reveals that he is also noteworthy for the Taliban death threats subsequent to his actions aiding Marcus Luttrell, moving this beyond WP:BLP1E. See, e.g., , and . 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All coverage of the subject provided by you is perhaps already linked in the article and as pointed out in nomination, in relation or centric to the their role in one-event. People in media for only one event may not qualify for inclusion per WP:BLP1E. Is there any -even a single coverage on Gulab Khan that discuss him independently of that event? I guess, no. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  03:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that coverage about him based on death threats he is receiving several years after the initial coverage about the rescue qualifies as a "single event" under the cited policy. While he may be receiving death threats in response to the role he played in the first event, the death threats and his call for asylum are separate events receiving coverage separated in time and focus. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What qualifies a single event is coverage centric or related to -one event. It is very plainly crystal clear as the wording depicts. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
 * Subject fails WP:BLP1E all three criteria. #1, -All coverage are related to only-one-event. #2, -low-profile individual. #3, -minor role in the event. The key person in the event was "Marcus Luttrell", the Lone Ranger or Survivor and they were covered v. well in reliable sources and have been subject of a book and movie, and they already have an article -Marcus Luttrell. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that you and I have both made our opinions clear. Perhaps we should let others help reach WP:CONSENSUS and avoid WP:BLUDGEON. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination subject doesn't satisfy WP:BLP1E, nor does there appear to be significant coverage per WP:GNG. What exists may be able to be covered elsewhere though. Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (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.