Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hozaifa Parhat
tl|afd}} is not a vote, as I understand it, you have the authority to discount arguments that are inaccurate, or are counter-policy.  Hofaiza Parhat is one of the most significant Guantanamo captives due to the significant ruling in his DTA appeal.  Nominator claimed there were no secondary sources that supported his notability.  Wrong.  Several books and and scholarly articles devoted page after page to the ruling.  In doing so they provided plenty of biographical details about the man himself.  Two of the contributors above assert that the references to Parhat are only ''"passing mentions"''.  That is true for ''some'' but by no means all of these references.  However, even if, for the sake of argument, all the references for some topic each only touched on that topic in a single paragraph, but each of those single paragraphs covered a different aspect of the topic, added together they would add up to the coverage in depth we expect in an article.   essay warns that instances occur when a small subsection of the project's community chime in, and give the appearance of a consensus, that would not be endorsed by the wider community.  I suggest the apparent consensus here is an instance of that phenomenon
— User:Geo, 12:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (Wikipedia:Consensus)