Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Ahmad Fayyad


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ali Ahmad Fayyad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN person, doesn't meet GNG. Coverage exists solely from his death because of his association with Hezbollah. No significant coverage otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep and speedy close as disruptive:  Article is sourced. This AfD only exists because User:MSJapan doesn't like that User:Kvng removed the PROD tag from this article.  IMO, since the article was sourced, removal of the PROD tag was acceptable and it should have never been AfDed.  p  b  p  14:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Going to AfD once a prod has been rejected is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. The fact that not everyone here agrees with you should indicate that there is some merit to this discussion. HighInBC Need help?   02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the disruption claim, though I still believe MSJapan HAS gone too hard after Kvng IMO. Didn't he just fill your talk page and e-mail box with requests to sanction him and/or me?  I'm not withdrawing the keep vote, as the article is sourced well enough to pass GNG IMO.   p  b  p  03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm withdrawing my vote as well. p  b  p  04:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability established by, , . This is significant coverage and I don't understand what policy disqualifies it as evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm changing my position after discovering and suggesting WP:BIO1E based research I did when things was saying were not making sense (see below). ~Kvng (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh good, now I have contrib stalkers. And actually, I AfDed this because the extent of what we know is "was a Hezbollah commander, is now dead" which is a perfect case of WP:NTEMP in terms of news media cycle coverage.  Reposting the sources that are already in the article doesn't establish notability if those sources don't establish notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking you. This article is on my watchlist because I deprodded it. I restate my original case for notability because, some people don't read the article, article history or article's talk page before commenting. Speaking of which, I don't think WP:NTEMP says what you think it does. You may be thinking of WP:BLP1E. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You yourself are a contrib stalker (of Kvng).  p  b  p  17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is WP:BIO1E actually. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine, withdrawn, I quit, have a nice day. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely nothing in the article passes GNG. This is not significant coverage because the only coverage is of his death. Someone who wasn't notable before his death (and there's no evidence that he was) doesn't become notable because of his death (and he doesn't pass WP:BIO for military personnel either).  You need to have some evidence of his notability whilst alive. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:BIO1E. The only news coverage about him concerns his death in a battle which is a single event. There is literally nothing else to indicate that the subject is notable. He was a field commander; nothing indicates that this is an important position. No news coverage seems to exist for the subject prior to this incident. Technically, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply but WP:BIO1E does apply here. Hence, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Of the sources we have, one is an article with no connection, with a mention of him in a caption. The other is an article that starts out mentioning his death, but digresses into discussion of the results of Hezbollah being involved in the Syrian Civil War, without showing how Fayyad had any policy role in such matter. Fayyad may well have been a key formulator of Hezobollah policy, but we would need sources that show this. Based on the sources that exist, he was a low level field commander killed in battle, and is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there should be not controversies about taking this to AfD at all, the information particularly is not suggestive of the needed solid independent notability with nothing to suggest his own convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:40, 17 June 2016 (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.