Deletion of Ehsanullah (Guantanamo detainee 350)

Comment: per 3 secondary sources. But more importantly, keep per  A phrase that quotes a prosecutor as saying the accused killed the victim can be extracted from his cross-examination, given sufficiently OR or POV reporting; that is the sole reason that trial records are to be used with care. Not really that difficult to avoid, when it comes down to it. N and GNG have treated primary sources as though they were radioactive for far too long, PRIMARY itself shows little of that squeamishness. Primary sources such as government documents are the most reliable source of information on what the government bodies that created those reports said in them, and replicating their information is OR-proof in today's heavily patrolled WP editing environment. There is little chance of OR or POV entering the article through those reports, and zero chance of OR remaining in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: per Yachtsman1, Anotherclown fails , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: like most of these articles the subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in |reliable sources under . Over course there is no reason why some of the information couldn't be included in List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, but its not suitable for a stand alone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)