Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Fahed Nasser Mohamed

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Fahed Nasser Mohamed
Page that was userfied two years ago, after being deleted in Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed for BLP reasons and lack of reliable independent sources. Since then, two more sources of the DoD have been added (so still not independent, DO sources we hade plenty at the time of the AfD), and an arab news source that states that "A captive named "Fahed al-Qahtani" was repatriated", without any evidence that this is the same as Fahed Nasser Mohamed, the subject of this WP:FAKEARTICLE. Fram (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the nominator that the changes made since the page was userfied two years ago have not addressed the concerns for deletion. The sources added do not provide significant coverage about Fahed Nasser. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Cunard. -- IQinn (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Request to possible closing administrators -- nominator and another contributor have nominated a flood of pages and articles for deletion, far more than anyone can reasonably be asked to effectively to in the time allotted. Note: I accept, at face value, our nominator's assurances that all of their recent flood of were sincerely intended.  Nevertheless, there has  not been anywhere near the time necessary to address these xfd.  So I request a relisting, not a closure.   Geo Swan (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.