Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri

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

The subject is one of a huge group of enemy combatants captured and then detained for an extended period of time, part of an even larger general trend over the years of capturing and detaining enemy fighters. Nothing about him sticks out above the rest, just much more documentation developed on such people in the last 20 years, but even at that there is not enough to make him stand out and be justified in having a stand-alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:BIO1E Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks "significant" coverage in RS per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not suggesting that all detainees are notable per se, Mishal al-Harbi has been the subject of significant coverage satisfying WP:BASIC. See, e.g., Episode at Guantanamo Leaves Family at a Loss and Life After Guantanamo . More sources are no doubt available in Arabic. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 09:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting to enable more input per sources provided in the keep !vote above.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The references cited by 24.151.10.165 would seem to be (just barely) enough to satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2014 (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.