Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmatulla (Guantanamo detainee 888)

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. Courcelles 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esmatulla (Guantanamo detainee 888)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely fails WP:BIO. Sources are either a) primary documents dealing with him in an insignificant and routine fashion or b) secondary sources dealing with him in a routine fashion. We cannot base notability, particularly in such controversial and potentially damaging cases, on routine, primary reporting. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: long blocks of quoted legalese is not a subsitute for actual notability. The article lists nothing notable about him except for the fact that he was a repatriated detainee, which is not enough for me. I doubt that Esmatulla is even is complete name, reflecting the incomplete and almost speculative nature of the article, such as his date of birth (WP:BLP and WP:BALL). bahamut0013^words _deeds 02:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919) and similar AfDs. Not notable other than be for being a detainee at Guantanamo, fails WP:MILMOS/N for lack of significant independent coverage. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anotherclown. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.