Deletion of Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

Comment: Fails  .We cannot be having articles for everyone detained
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: for failing .  Why give the detainees more coverage than they deserve
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per . There is no significant coverage of this individual in his own right in reliable secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: per nom. The article cites only primary sources, with no secondary sources to establish news coverage of this individual. Almost all Google hits for him are from Wikipedia itself, and there are no Google News or Google News Archive hits I could find. The fact that he is held at the notable Guantanamo Bay detention camp does not establish that he himself is notable per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: as per nom.  The http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Ahmed+Adnan+Muhammad%22&ie=UTF-8 above ghits link does not establish notability as each hit is in fact simply a name on the list ( the subject of the article only appears on lists of prisoners).  In other words, there is no independent coverage where this person is the subject of the article.  Fails  and I also see merit in
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Wikipedia isn't paper and has no size constraints #PAPER.  So all detainees (even those committing shockingly evil acts) can and are notable, even as individuals. In the same way, I would argue that everyone on Schindler's list is notable on wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Fails , and that's all that counts. If he has received no individual media attention (most likely because they also have no other information), Wikipedia shouldn't have an individual article either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: This AfD seems to me to be going in a rather unique direction.  The main question is whether there are or are not multiple verifiable sources to establish this individual's notability.  ''Assuming'' that there must be sources is an example of .  ''Assuming'' that web hits of a simple transliteration of this name must be about this subject (without confirmation of this fact) is not an acceptable means to justify this individual's notability. What does remain is that '''the subject of this article does not have multiple independent sources that focus specifically upon him'''.  His name is only listed along with dozens of other internees in the media and he appears in the OARDEC reports that were done by the US government.  OARDEC is an American Department of Defence organization (under the control of the Navy) that has the sole purpose of reviewing each internee's case/status!  There are literally ''hundreds'' of OARDEC reports on detainees - it would be similar to say (to stick with the Supermax comparison) that a Supermax-commissioned report on a possible parolee at Supermax would constitute notability. This just does not satisfy , independent reliable sources, nor our notability requirements
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:BIO)