Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam
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
— User:BWH76, 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ILIKEIT||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)