- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Mohammed Abdel Karim Al Ghezali
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mohammed Abdel Karim Al Ghezali ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. Al Qaeda member who appeared in one video 11 years ago. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominators have an obligation to do their best to comply with WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately many contributors who nominate articles for deletion routinely overlook the complications of doing a web search on individuals with Arabic names. power~enwiki asserts that Al Ghazali is known only for his appearance in the video that marked the founding of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He or she overlooked that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson named him on the USA's official list of global terrorists. Tillerson described him as a senior leader of AQAP. So, he is not merely some guy who happened to appear in a video. Geo Swan ( talk) 10:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete being put on a government list is a primary source issue, not a secondary source issue. Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources, none of which people have provided, so we should delete. Verifiability means the burden is on article creators to amasss a sufficient enough body of sources to show notability, the burden is not on the rest of us to hunt down those sources that people who value quantity over quality may have overlooked.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Johnpacklambert, are you sure you understand
WP:PRIMARY? We normally consider a government list a primary source. Why? Because we don't rely on the government organ that drafted it for an independent evaluation of its significance. But when other parties, like Amnesty Intenational, or news agencies, report on that government list, then those reports are secondary sources. Those RS are providing their independent evaluation as to the list's significance. Even if the press reports don't explicitly say "this list is significant" the mere fact that they reported on the list establishes they concluded it was significant, as there are lots of lists they don't report on because they don't regard those as significant.
I am honestly shocked that someone who has been around as long as you have has failed to grasp this very basic point. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Johnpacklambert, are you sure you understand
WP:PRIMARY? We normally consider a government list a primary source. Why? Because we don't rely on the government organ that drafted it for an independent evaluation of its significance. But when other parties, like Amnesty Intenational, or news agencies, report on that government list, then those reports are secondary sources. Those RS are providing their independent evaluation as to the list's significance. Even if the press reports don't explicitly say "this list is significant" the mere fact that they reported on the list establishes they concluded it was significant, as there are lots of lists they don't report on because they don't regard those as significant.
- Keep as per Geo Swan, evidently notable at their chosen profession. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 23:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Being described as global terrorists in the official lists is not ordinary. I've got some good sources in other languages so i'm okay with this article being kept. Even in the worst circumstances, ex-when somebody proves that there is not enough coverage, this will be case of WP:TOOSOON. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 10:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Mohammed Abdel Karim Al Ghezali
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mohammed Abdel Karim Al Ghezali ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. Al Qaeda member who appeared in one video 11 years ago. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominators have an obligation to do their best to comply with WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately many contributors who nominate articles for deletion routinely overlook the complications of doing a web search on individuals with Arabic names. power~enwiki asserts that Al Ghazali is known only for his appearance in the video that marked the founding of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He or she overlooked that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson named him on the USA's official list of global terrorists. Tillerson described him as a senior leader of AQAP. So, he is not merely some guy who happened to appear in a video. Geo Swan ( talk) 10:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete being put on a government list is a primary source issue, not a secondary source issue. Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources, none of which people have provided, so we should delete. Verifiability means the burden is on article creators to amasss a sufficient enough body of sources to show notability, the burden is not on the rest of us to hunt down those sources that people who value quantity over quality may have overlooked.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Johnpacklambert, are you sure you understand
WP:PRIMARY? We normally consider a government list a primary source. Why? Because we don't rely on the government organ that drafted it for an independent evaluation of its significance. But when other parties, like Amnesty Intenational, or news agencies, report on that government list, then those reports are secondary sources. Those RS are providing their independent evaluation as to the list's significance. Even if the press reports don't explicitly say "this list is significant" the mere fact that they reported on the list establishes they concluded it was significant, as there are lots of lists they don't report on because they don't regard those as significant.
I am honestly shocked that someone who has been around as long as you have has failed to grasp this very basic point. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Johnpacklambert, are you sure you understand
WP:PRIMARY? We normally consider a government list a primary source. Why? Because we don't rely on the government organ that drafted it for an independent evaluation of its significance. But when other parties, like Amnesty Intenational, or news agencies, report on that government list, then those reports are secondary sources. Those RS are providing their independent evaluation as to the list's significance. Even if the press reports don't explicitly say "this list is significant" the mere fact that they reported on the list establishes they concluded it was significant, as there are lots of lists they don't report on because they don't regard those as significant.
- Keep as per Geo Swan, evidently notable at their chosen profession. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 23:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Being described as global terrorists in the official lists is not ordinary. I've got some good sources in other languages so i'm okay with this article being kept. Even in the worst circumstances, ex-when somebody proves that there is not enough coverage, this will be case of WP:TOOSOON. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 10:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.