Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Sada


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Georges Sada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am nominating the Georges Sada BLP article for AfD. I've cleaned up the article extensively, including adding sources were verifiability is possible, removing unreliable sources that are simply the article subject, Sada, speaking about himself in interviews or articles recapping an interview or meeting with him or straight-forwardly Failed verification, and other things violating WP:BLP, WP:QS and other verifiability issues, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:IS, WP:BLPRS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BIO (notability), and other policies that would mandate a deletion or major overhaul. This and other issues have been explained and discussed on the article's Talk page. However, the article still includes some unverifiable/unsourced information, and info in references, that does not meet WP:BLP, WP:RS/WP:RS, and also fails the notability test. What would remain after trimming the article down to what can only be that are only 3 "reliable" information points about him on the article:

1) He was for some unspecified duration a spokesperson for interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and even that required searching newspaper archives and web archives to find a few sources that off-hand mentioned this. I realize this does not fit the notability (bio) criteria: "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention." in the sense it is a "mere trivial mention", but for the sake of discussion I'm pointing it out. His position as a spokesperson was by no means famous, significant, or notable, and required research by multiple editors to find trivial mentions of it.

2) He won the Coventry Cathedral's prize for international peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately, the article includes a couple of his controversial, unverifiable claims discussed in the Talk page. In addition, the award itself is not famous or well-known. For example, it's nothing like a Pulitzer Prize, Oscar, or Nobel Prize. Sada is not a known figure for this. It is at best a side detail and not notable or significant, and doesn't full WP:BIO additional criteria. The source itself is from local Coventry News, not widespread across national (in the UK where Coventry is) and international news.

3) This third point is arguably the only reason the subject is known to any extent and included in the original edits of the article: a claim, which more or less amounts to conspiracy theory, that before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi government not only still had WMDs but had moved it all to Syria. This is already covered in WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Even so, Sada was not substantial or influential in this. He just put forward a theory on which nothing could be verified and no action was taken. Col. Frank Wismer in his memoir "War in the Garden of Eden: A Military Chaplain's Memoir from Baghdad" relates on his meetings with Georges Sada, and how he spoke to a US government intel oversight panel official who told him the information was unreliable and inaccurate, and Wismer also doubted Sada's authenticity. In fact, to even learn about Sada or his theory, it may require digging into Iraq WMD conjecture and conspiracy theories. And in fact, the article was created in the same month that Sada's book regarding the WMD claims was released, January 2006 (https://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Hardcover-Author-Georges/dp/B00EOHHVZW/).

A note on notability: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:BIO

Unfortunately, at its worst before the improvement and clean-up, the article contained mostly unsourced information, and that which was sourced came from troublesome unreliable and primary info from the subject, Georges Sada, written into some article describing said talk/interview as previous described. This has been a problem discussed since 2006 when the article was created, including by the article's original creator, User:Sherurcij, who had questioned the authenticity of the subject and lack of reliable, independent sources. Even with the immense clean-up and improvement, the subject still is not notable, or at best, is notable for one thing: his particular Iraq WMD (conspiracy) theory. Even this one thing, it is already covered in WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. In essence, the article relied on Sada himself, a primary source, giving a talk to interview to a questionable source that inserts no analysis or fact-checking for even his most bizarre claims (e.g. Iraq bought fully assembled nuclear bombs from China, but the invasion prevented their delivery) but rather states them as fact and of course obviously not independent of the subject. Other sources that did was not specifically a recap or transcript an interview/meeting with Sada were not intellectually independent of each other.

Following improvements, the article subject is still not notable as discussed. In the three things that can be semi-reliably confirmed about Sada, they aren't notable or requiring an article, and lacking in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic AND provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention, except regarding the fact of the WMD theory claim he made. He did not become a well-known or significant figure as a result of his WMD claims or his book, so it's difficult to make the case he's even notable. The WMD claim is not an event itself, nevermind a significant one. To be notable for this, Sada would have to have been significant in some verifiable event. However, his WMD claim was inconsequential as nothing came of it and he started making it after the invasion and was deemed unreliable/inaccurate. His claim was not actually part of any event, except appearing on Fox News to promote his book, which is not significant or notable. Considering his WMD claim is already touched upon in a more relevant Wikipedia article, the Georges Sada article is already redundant, and so a merging or moving is not needed.

Overall, in its current cleaned-up state, Georges Sada still suffers with regards to WP:PSEUDO, for example "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?" The answer to the second part of the question is Yes.

'''This does not meet the requirements WP:MILPERSON which requires "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." This is not met''', and the claim of Sada being a general (and other things like #2 in the Iraqi Air Force) is a verbal claim from himself directly. There are no independent, reliable sourcing/verification otherwise. A couple sources in which he isn't directly involved may make a trivial mention but is still not fully independent of him (e.g. him receiving a small award). This also fails WP:BIO since it is a trivial mention. Sources calling him a "General", as a trivial mention, especially and specifically in the context of his own claim of himself in his book Saddam's Secrets do not fulfill the policy either. This is also a case of WP:REDFLAG violation since the source of this important and surprising claim is primary sourcing or second-hand "What Sada said" in nature. There is not high-quality, verifiable, independent secondary sourcing on this, nevermind not being substantial in quantity. Also consider this from WP:MILPERSON policy: "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article".

It doesn't fit the bill for WP:BASIC either. Even if we could make the argument that Sada is notable for his WMD claim and that somehow it was significant in some way, like Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Franz Ferdinand, WP:BIO1E still applies here. WP:FAILN "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted." is applicable here and in this case, the pertinent content is already merged. There isn't significant coverage of Sada either, and what does exist is overwhelmingly regarding talks, transcript, interview recaps, and meetings of him. Overall there isn't much if anything to warrant a standalone page and does not do well in satisfying WP:BIO. My recommendation is to DELETE.

'''Edit: Note for admins: The article does not satisfy WP:MILPERSON. The votes below on that basis are based on a misunderstanding of what WP:MILPERSON and WP:BIO require. Trivial mentions fail WP:BIO. More importantly, something the subject claimed about himself in some sources or is described based off what he said in other sources (such as in the context of his book, in which he describes himself as a general), also fails WP:MILPERSON, which states "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" and "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article" Referencing Sada's own book and calling him a general on that basis does not fill this requirement. It's still unreliable, unverifiable primary sourcing at that point. Even if notability could be argued for one event, by WP:BIO1E the information belongs in another article, which it already does. WP:REDFLAG is also relevant here.''' Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, flag officer (General) in Iraqi army. His memoirs and interviews have also had an impact. Deletion is not cleanup.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:MILPERSON as a flag officer. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Eostrix User:Coolabahapple Just an FYI, there isn't independent, reliable sourcing that he was a flag officer. The claim comes from him. How did his interviews have an impact by the way, especially considering nothing came of it and he's been described as unreliable and inaccurate and lacking credibility? By the way this actually fails WP:MILPERSON because "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." is not met. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to search Saddam era Arabic sources, but sources in English: Times of Israel, Tate Publishing Ltd book, Morgan James Publishing book (2nd in command of air force), and Publisher's Weekly all call him a general and are independent.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Eostrix Perhaps you didn't read through the opening post or the Talk page, but this is one of the precise serious issues brought up since 2006. Furthermore, your first source only mentions Sada's conspiracy theory and only in passing mentions him as a "general", which as has been discussed to death is a claim that originates with himself. The other sources calling him a "General" purely on the basis of his own claim of himself as a general in his own book Saddam's Secrets or even cite it directly. It's using unreliable primary sourcing (primary because it's coming from Sada himself). Again, that trivial mention (which still fails WP:BIO) does not meet the critiera for WP:MILPERSON. This still fails WP:BIO, WP:MILPERSON, WP:REDFLAG, etc. On a deeper level, considering Sada is strictly known for a baseless conspiracy theory, how are we supposed to take his word at face value for other matters? Even if he was scrupulous, this would still fail WP:BIO / WP:MILPERSON criteria. And as already discussed, this article subject is not notable, and if the case can be made he is, is only notable for one event WP:BIO1E.


 * Example: "Iraqi general Georges Sada was interviewed by Jon Stewart about his political memoir Saddam's Secrets". One, this is a trivial mention. Two, this is specifically in the context of his own book where he claims being a general making it very easy to see where the claim in this source originates from, so it's still a case of primary sourcing. Three, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and our only original source is Sada himself who has a very clear conflict of interest as he uses his supposed rank (even claiming to be #2 in the Iraqi Air Force, also unverifiable) to push his WMD theory and a couple other unverifiable and contradictory stories. See WP:BIO, WP:V/WP:REDFLAG, and WP:MILPERSON for more details. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * PS: "I don't know how to search Saddam era Arabic sources,": I did this and with the help of a few others. There was nothing. Evidently Sada fell off a historical record there's no proof of him being on, other than what originates with his own word. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, rather surprisingly. I can only agree with the nominator that there are no truly independent sources showing that the subject was a senior officer, let alone a general officer, in Iraq, but merely some that repeat his own unverified claim. There is also no reliable source, rather than sources written by people associated with fringe churches that support him, that supports anything about him. I spent a few hours looking for such sources yesterday, and can only conclude that the nominator is correct. And, if you read the talk page and the history of this article, you can see that I am certainly not taking the nominator at face value. If there was significant coverage by others showing it then the subject would be notable as a liar, but I can also not find sufficient evidence to say that. Independent reliable sources have simply ignored this person, so we should do the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, thanks to above discussions, have struck out my "keep" due to lack of independent sources/unverifiability of claims. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, Sada's book Saddam's Secrets are held in around 350 libraries but have not found enough reviews to warrant a standalone article ie. more then this PW review is required. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Doesn't meet notable biography criteria. Author in question made many unverified claims in his book citing "anonymous pilots". DesertPanther (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SOLDIER is just an essay, not an SNG and the claims that he was a general are not supported and being a general is not inherently notable. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2020 (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.