Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid al-'Unaizi


 * 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   merge to Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 03:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Khalid al-'Unaizi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. One source mentioned the name of this individual followed by OR that list the things we do not know about that individual. IQinn (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge --- The last time I worked on this article the DoD had not published a list of the individuals released from Guantanamo. On 2008-11-26 the DoD did release that list -- so it became possible to match the name "Khalid al-'Unaizi" with Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi".  Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is non-notable under WP:GNG. Of course there is no reason why the information cannot be included in a parent article or list, however there is not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown, this man has been widely interviewed, including the following interview by the Washington Post, and is one of the most vocal of the returned Saudi captives. Could you please explain why you do not recognize this as "significant independent coverage"?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * mirror
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * merge as Geo suggests. There is not really enough material for an independent article.    DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 5 March 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.