Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abduhl Wal-i-Musi


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Abduhl Wal-i-Musi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This specific person is barely notable at all, and even then it definiately falls under WP:1E. The page should be deleted and his name should be mentioned in Maersk Alabama hijacking.-- T orsodo g Talk 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete . (Changed to Keep; see below) I actually performed a bold merge of a previous version of the article, but it was undone. This person plainly falls under WP:BLP1E; he's only known for being apprehended after a single act of piracy. It's unlikely that he'll ever be notable for anything else in the future. Essentially all of the verifiable information on this individual is already repeated in Maersk Alabama hijacking and MV Maersk Alabama as well due to the previous merge. There's no need to have a separate article. However, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with redirecting his name to Maersk Alabama hijacking so that people can find the appropriate information on him. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Update: Since this article was originally nominated for deletion, the article subject has been the focus of extensive news coverage that establishes notability. I therefore now advocate keeping the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Merge . Own section in the Maersk Alabama hijacking article seems to be appropriate, as has been done for Captain Phillips.--Kiwipat (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As he is rapidly gaining notability.--Kiwipat (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

*Merge with Maersk Alabama hijacking Per WP:BLP1E an article on Abduhl Wal-i-Musi, who is only notable for one event, isn't warranted in my opinion. A common argument against merging on the talk page of Maersk Alabama hijacking is that the subject will become notable once his trial is underway. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't presume he will become notable, no matter how probable that outcome is. If and once the trial is underway the coverage of him is sufficient, I will support creating a separate article on Abduhl Wal-i-Musi. Until then, we can't presume, so I support a merge. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Notable by mention in national newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic.  Inportant in relation to legal issues, such as age determination of defendants without a birth certificate and "trial as an adult". Pustelnik (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has been mentioned in newspapers, but in relation to only one event (WP:1E) and there are no legal issues as of yet (WP:CRYSTAL). -- T orsodo g Talk 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with what Torsodog said just above. Plus, Pustelnik, even if the legal issue you described does come up, I can't see how it can become so noteworthy that it can't be summarized in a more relevant legal article, as opposed to having its own article.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Wal-i-Musi is the only pirate who is being brought to the USA to face trial. Dozens of pirates, or possibly hundreds of pirates, have been apprehended so far.  Almost all have been set free within a few hours, or the next day, because most naval forces patrolling the area lack the authority to make arrests.  Maybe a dozen other pirates have ended up in custody in Mombassa, and there is some talk that they may face charges in Kenya.  But their situation is different than Wal-i-Musi's because there is a lack of confidence in the ability of the Kenyan justice system to offer suspects a fair trial.  So Wal-i-Musi is not "just another pirate".  He is the sole pirate to face trial in a first world country.  I think there should be an article on the prosecution of Somali pirates, and that most of the pirates won't merit coverage in their own article, because we won't learn enough about them -- but Wal-i-Musi is the exception, because he is being brought to New York for trial.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is all still in the future. If, and until he receives great coverage from the trial he is still notable for only one event, and to presume that he will be notable because of the trial is against WP:CRYSTAL.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you regard coverage of his charges, and his trial, as part of the same event as the hijacking?
 * I am not familiar with any policy that states that coverage has to be "great coverage" in order to establish notability. Could you please direct me to whatever section of an official wikipolicy or guideline that states this?
 * There are already serious questions being raised about his capture. If the USA violated the laws of war in its capture of him I don't think there is any doubt that he is notable.  I suggest that questions about a violation of the laws of war in his capture are sufficient to establish notability, even if they are dismissed.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "I think in this particular case, there's a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas. This man seemed to come onto the Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody..."
 * "I think in this particular case, there's a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas. This man seemed to come onto the Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody..."


 * }


 * Keep. No matter the legality of the process, this is the first individual charged with piracy under US law in well over a century; the course of justice in the meantime will mean his case is closely watched for this alone. Radagast (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily deserves an independent article. The coverage of the legal case against him was the lead story on the New York Times this morning and coverage is likely to go on for quite some time. - SimonP (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The case is rapidly developing notability separate from the hijacking incident; I think an article about the accused pirate is warranted, to keep things from getting cluttered. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Radagast Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepNotable as first person charged with piracy in US courts since who knows when. The article must be strictly prevented from BLP violations, since he is a living person accused with a crime. Edison (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - From a legal standpoint, the first person to be put on trial for the specific charge of piracy in the U.S. in over a century is notable. Scanlan (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - His trial as a pirate is unprecedented in modern America, he is notable outside of the hijacking. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes BLP1E requirements for an individual article, from the policy we have: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". This individual's role is one of a pirate, not a passive bystander or victim. The role can hardly get any larger than that. The case is the first piracy trial in the United States in over a hundred years, and the Maersk Alabama hijacking and rescue has been commentated on by people all the way up to the presidency. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep I've changed my mind from advocating a merge to advocating a keep. When I argued for merge, the subject was still only notable for one event.  Now, the level of coverage for his legal proceedings have made me decide a keep is now warranted.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2009 (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.