Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al-Muhsin al-Libi


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd al-Muhsin al-Libi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO and BLP. Negative BLP purely based on primary sources. IQinn (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable. V7-sport (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * V7-sport it is absolute clear from your recent edits that you are WP:WIKIHOUNDING since we are in an dispute over an unrelated issue. That together with a long list of uncivil behavior and extensive edit warring is disruptive and enough reason you might get blocked as you have been warned already multiple times for most of this.
 * Note for the closing administrator. V7-sport is obviously Wikihounding but the even more compelling reason to discount his !vote is that he does not provide any compelling argument other that stating his !vote. In fact he does not provide any argument or any other constructive comment that could help us to find out if this article here should be deleted. IQinn (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)*
 * I agree with you that V7's bare statement needs to be supported, but, since he seems genuinely interested in topics such as this, topics in which you are interested also,  I do not see how it amounts to wikihounding, but rather a persistent conflict. That's regrettable, but not wikihounding.    DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Genuinely interest is fine but looking at the long string of edits over numerous articles in a short time just after we had an conflict there is no doubt that he is wikihounding. Anyway he is of course welcome to come back and help us with Afd here but you know in his current form his !vote is invalid. IQinn (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject has not been covered by secondary sources, such as newspapers, books and other print media. Only source conferring notability are State Department, or pimary source, reports.  Subject fails notability, and this is not even a very close call.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The very google news link in the nomination leads to several sources, including USA today  and BBC . Tbhey just need to be added.    DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Non of the links you provide adds up to "Significant coverage" what is needed to establish notability under WP:GNG. The primary sources do also not count towards notability under WP:GNG. Do you have further sources? IQinn (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - despite a number of passing mentions the subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such it is not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like he has only received passing coverage in independent sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Is anyone even sure whether this guy is Pakistani? His name is Arabic and definitely does not sound Pakistani. Mar4d (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete. I can't fully evaluate the sources provided by google news as they are behind paywalls but they appear to be about the US freezing the assets of several terrorist groups with the subject being mentioned only in passing. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2011 (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.