Deletion of Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

Comment: fixed AfD listing (please use {{tl|afd2}}; see the detailed directions at #How to list pages for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: does not meet standards of .  The majority of the sources listed are not independent, reliable sources (as they are US military documents), and there are no independent reliable sources for which Al Marwa’i is the subject.  After doing some research on this individual, the sources I've found only mention Al Marwa’i's name (aside from the primary sources listed) is in the context of lists of detainees (which falls under trivial coverage); nothing focuses on him.  This AfD is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam | this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakub Abahanov | this one, both of which were deleted for the same reasons: no independent, reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: This one with similar) These articles, as they are, do seem like |Coatracks to me. Much of each article is repetitive. However, this distracts the core issue: Is the specific subject notable? If so, there are sufficient sources, of sufficient reliability, to justify some article, properly done. It might be brief. It seems that the available sources are already listed, but a problem is that the article seems to be a complete compilation of what is in the sources, whereas it might be more appropriate to link to the sources and give only bare highlights; and, if this is the case, many of these articles might be merged. Presently, many details only peripherally related to the subject of the article are in each article. (For example, all the detainees from Yemen might be merged, and only specially notable ones would have their own article. The Yemen detainee article would include the details about negotiations with the Yemen. Those with independent articles would be ones where there are other sources that discuss the specific subject in depth, independently from the military documents and lists or brief mentions in news reports. The conclusion I came to is that '''all the detainees are notable,''' by virtue of being a very famous set of detainees, though not necessarily sufficiently notable to have each his own article, and, especially the individual detainee articles shouldn't belabor the overall issue, each one repeating at length the same redundant information. These issues are far too complex to resolve in an AfD, rather, consensus should be sought among interested editors or through RfC etc. I actually started this with a Delete !vote.... To bring these articles to standards, to remove the coatrack aspect, will take quite a bit of work. I'm not willing to invest it and then see the article deleted, been there, done that. If this article survives AfD, I intend to work with other editors involved to clean them up. I'm not interested in coatracking, but I am interested in Wikipedia having clear and clean coverage of the topic
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT)

Comment: The concensus from previous Guantanomo Bay detainee Afd's has been that the detainess are no differnet then any other people and must meet the notabiliy standard of . Therefore, as the article does show that this person has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" the article must be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: nothing more than another arbitrary article about an arbitrary Gitmo detainee. I'm |assuming good faith that this string of articles is not being created as a |coatrack, but the assumption's being stretched
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:COATRACK)