Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadi Kiblawi


 * 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   no consensus. NW ( Talk ) 03:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fadi Kiblawi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion as set out in WP:BIO. In particular, while Kiblawi's works have been cited in reliable sources, Kiblawi himself has not been the subject of reliable third-party coverage. The sourcing here is also thin and problematic: one WSJ editorial (not a news article), Rabbishmuel.com (unknown reliability), a few mentions in a campus newspaper, one mention in Michigan Daily where Kiblawi's opinion is quoted but he is not the subject of the article. This isn't, and probably cannot be, a biography: at most it is a description of a handful of controversies that this individual has been involved in. Per WP:BLP we generally don't want to do this. If the article is to be kept, I would like to see at least one reliable source for which Kiblawi is actually the subject, not just someone who is cited or mentioned in passing. If we analyze Kiblawi as a scholar, the inclusion requirements of WP:PROF also don't seem to be met. *** Crotalus *** 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate testIt would be as inappropriate for you to require htat he be evaluated as a scholar as it was for you to cite him as one. He was a student activist.  He organized a national conference.  He wrote op-eds, he was interviewed, he got arrested, it was all in the newspapers.  He was no scholar.Historicist (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I wrote the article because I ran into Kiblawi being quoted in a Wikipedia article Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend as an authoritative source on American history and Martin Luther King. As a Wikipedia user, I like being able to click and see who teh cited authority is.  As a Wikipedia editor, I feel a responsibility to put up articles on people who are quoted as authoritative sources.  the article needs improvement (true of most Wikipedia articles) this is not a reason to delete.    However, pace User:Crotalus Kiblawi is not merely mentioned in passing in these articles.  He is the subject of a series of articles in various publications about his activities as a student activist.Historicist (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * comment It turns out that the article where I first met Fadi Kiblawi was written by User:Crotalus horridus the article cites Fadi Kiblawi as an authoritative source - but Crotalus horridus does not think he is important enough to have a Wikipedia page - huh?  I tagged the article and have been insisting that facts have to be sourced to WP:RS publications.  User:Crotalus horridus had sourced primarily to three sources that are WP reliable only for matters of opinion, not for matters of fact: Electronic Intifada, Z magazine and Counterpunch.  It is possible that User:Crotalus horridus resents being required to produce reliable sources for his assertions of fact.  I am not, by the way, denying the fundamental truth of the article,  But we have a responsibility to source articles WP:RS publications.Historicist (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because somebody is cited on Wikipedia does not mean they should have an article on Wikipedia. The rest of your last comment is irrelevant to this AfD.  nableezy  - 19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability of sources has nothing to do with Wikipedia's biographical inclusion policies for the authors of those sources. See WP:RS and WP:PROF. All tenured professors have to produce peer-reviewed articles. Those articles are unquestionably reliable sources per our policies. But WP:PROF makes it clear that just because someone is an average tenured professor doesn't make them notable. I realize that this hypothetical doesn't apply 100% to the case here, but it makes my point: someone can be a WP:RS even if they don't, by themselves, merit a biographical article. Kiblawi was cited as a reliable source by Eric Sundquist, who wrote a book published by Harvard University Press that is itself clearly a RS. That doesn't mean that Kiblawi (or Sundquist for that matter) should have articles. We don't work that way. *** Crotalus *** 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not relevant to the AFD, only to Cortalus's degree of understanding of scholarship. Kiblawi was not cited by Sundquist as a reliable source.  He was cited in a long footnote listing every published article that discussed the fake MLK letter.Historicist (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the sources used here are problematic to say the least. The Michigan Daily is a student run paper that may or may not be reliable, but it is focusing on the arrest of Sami Al-Arian and only brings up Kiblawi when quoting him for his thoughts on the arrest of Prof al-Arian (two lines in the article). The first source cited is from a sermon by one Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, I cannot imagine this could possibly be a RS for a BLP. The GW Hatchet, another student run paper, is used for an editorial written by Kiblawi, while that would be a RS for Kiblawi's views it does not establish notability among third party secondary sources. The WSJ source, as pointed out above, is also an editorial. There is not a single reliable secondary source focusing on Kiblawi, so even if this were not a BLP the result should be delete. As it is a BLP this is undoubtedly a delete.  nableezy  - 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * news google has plenty of articles with which the article can be expanded.Historicist (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are indeed plenty of stories mentioning him, but you need sources focused on him to meet the notability guidelines.  nableezy  - 23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * College papers are WP:RS for campus events. Anyone can run a quick news goodle search and establish that Kiblawi was a student leader whose activities drew a great deal of press coverage.Historicist (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You miss the point, there needs to be articles focusing on him, not just quoting him on some other topic. Third party secondary sources focusing on the subject of the article. That is what is needed, not some college paper quoting him on al-Arian's arrest.  nableezy  - 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * News google and sources in the article demonstrate that major national news sources (CNN, Christian Science Monitor, etc.) interviewed Kiblawi at length, and published descritpions of him and information about his background in the context of his role as a student activist who, among other activities, led a major national conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement while a student at U. Michigan, and continued to be active in the Movement while a law student at Georgetown, again journalistic attention.Historicist (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * A genuinely marginal case, this one. Searching for Fadi Kiblawi yields sources like CNN and the New York Times, which at first glance looks like a "keep", but drilling down and reading the sources, it's questionable to what extent there's in depth coverage of Fadi Kiblawi (as opposed to coverage of things Fadi Kiblawi is involved in, of which there's quite a bit of coverage).  So I can see both sides of it. Checking this against the general notability guideline, I'm of the view that CNN and the New York Times are reliable sources and they're independent of the subject.  I also see that the coverage is more than a trivial mention, but less than an in-depth analysis.  So we really are in judgment call territory. In my opinion it's rarely appropriate to delete reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia, so I shall give this material the benefit of the doubt and !vote weak keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep have to say keep per the other keep sayers opinions. plus good sourcing.--Judo112 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 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.