Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously redirected after Articles for deletion/Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi, which didn't really focus on the article but just on the duplication of contents. However, there are no independent sources for this article (the two sources given don't mention Hawsawi at all!). So it fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Looking for other sources, I found nothing through Google Books or Google News Archives. Fram (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails both WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Bill william compton (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Biographies of living people made up entirely of templates and primary documents do not belong in this encyclopedia.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, even in English there are news articles; you just need to know that Amran = Umran and try variants of Muhammad/Mohamed. Sheesh, people don't even try. Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that could establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You claim that there are sources, but you don't provide any. Just give us a few specific indepth reliable independent sources to cinvince us, and people may well take your "keep" into account and change their opinion accordingly. But a claim without anything to back it up is meaningless here, and AfD is not a votecount but a policy- and source-based discussion. Fram (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails notability. The article is based on primary, governmental sources.  Subject has not been covered by news organizations and/or secondary sources.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under the general notability guideline. Bulk of the references are primary documents per WP:PRIMARY. Anotherclown (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per everyone above - minus Papermoneyisjustpaper who has no compelling argument and is most likely a sock-puppet. IQinn (talk) 10:35, 13 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.