Deletion of Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami

Comment: can nominator please clarify which part of  Andre Dallaire meets?  is '''not policy''', it is a sadly-flawed and incomplete attempt to list what specific editors think makes a "good" article. It is subjective, and simply says "In the field of chemistry, ''this'' is what we consider notable, in the field of Football, ''this'' is what we consider notable". Please don't make a false appeal to authority by claiming articles need to match some random and invisible benchmark set up by a few users anxious to overinflate their own importance by trying to categorise what makes a "good" biographical article. I could just as easily walk around AFDs demanding "Please explain how you think this article deserves to be kept based on User:Sherurcij/ListOfArticlesThatPissMeOff. There's almost zero validity to our current , which is just made to ''look'' important by a bunch of users such as yourself throwing it around heftily
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I am not too sure how many Guantanamo detainees have their articles on WP. WP is surely not the place to cover all inmates from all illegal camps in the world. However, the topic "Inmate in Guantanamo" is surely notable and encyclopaedic. As argued for in Anil's Ghost, it is difficult to give visibility to numbers; often, it is a better solution to pick one exemplary case to illustrate the topic. RBBBJAH could be such a case, but the article might be moved/merged to another article, like Biographies of Guantanamo prisoners or sth like that, with an eye on  and  of course. Given that the article is rather well-sourced and written for such a difficult topic, I would favour preserving the content in one way or another, on this page or on another page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)