Deletion of Abdul Qudus

Comment: As with several other Guantanamo detainees whose articles have come up at AfD in the past, the problem here is a lack of |secondary sources with coverage of the subject. The most promising-looking secondary sources cited in this article, articles from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1773140.stm BBC News and http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/US-releases-Guantanamo-files/2006/04/04/1143916500334.html The Age, don't mention Qudus. Nor does the Congressional Research Service report. That leaves five sources, all published by OARDEC and/or the U.S. Department of Defense, which are all primary sources relating to Qudus's detention or its review. Of those, three of them have only a single line of data about Qudus amid a list of other detainees. One of the other sources is a broken link. According to the article No longer enemy combatant, Qudus was released and returned to Afghanistan over 4 years ago. Yet, despite the ongoing international controversy over the detentions at Guantanamo, no media sources have been found which have discussed or even mentioned Qudus as an individual. Googling for his name reveals that "Abdul Qudus" is a common name so I would have difficulty finding sources about him myself. The burden should be on the supporters of the article to find secondary sources about the subject. Finally, I note that these Guantanamo detainee articles are getting so generic that this article actually relies on a template, {{tl|CSRT-Yes}}, to supply two and a half paragraphs of boilerplate that is apparently being dumped into numerous articles of this kind (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CSRT-Yes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The classic wp:blp1e. Besides, the article is terribly written. Instead of a  bio, we have the US case (or lack thereof) written up here. Clearly a  for something else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)