Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rais Mohammed Khan

Rais Mohammed Khan

Rais Mohammed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Subject appears to lack "signficant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is not notable under the general notability guidelines. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into Bagram Theater Internment Facility#Captives reported to have been held in Bagram - that is absolutely where this material belongs. - KeptSouth (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect - Subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. What content is here, can be summarized and added to the list Bagram Theater Internment Facility#Captives reported to have been held in Bagram as stated by KeptSouth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. A merge/redirect might be acceptable if that is what concensus determines, but I'm a bit concerned about whether or not it might breach WP:UNDUE. For instance, we don't list every person every incarcerated in a specific jail, even if that jail has its own article. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep obviously a real person, notable for being an extra-judicial tenant of the U.S. government. This kind of information is why Wikipedia was created. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia was created by a large number of people and their vision is reflected in our policies. Being a "real person" or a detainee does not grant notability. This BLP fails WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Kendrick7, under what policy do you claim the subject of this Afd is notable? Anotherclown (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - The subject has been ascribed notability because he was mentioned in a Human Rights report. This is not nearly enough to meet the requriements for notability. The subject has clearly not been the subect of secondary source coverage. Being a Detainee, as has been explained on numerous occassions, does not make one notable, nor does being a "real person". --Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)