Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isam al Khafaji


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Isam al Khafaji

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article doesn't demonstrate notability nor meets the minimum bar to firstly presume inclusion per WP:BIO and WP:N. After researching more of what's out there, he is at best a minor academic and war advocate. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iraq. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He is obviously a prolific commentator but in depth sourcing about him isn’t particularly easy to come by. I found 1, 2 and 3 and similar. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was hopeful the links would help demonstrate GNG but they do not unfortunately. They achieve the opposite effect. I assume Google Translate is not too bad for this. 1 is not a reliable source and says very little about him. Basic bio info and looks like a contributor profile. 2 is someone's blog and most of the content is condemning the US occupation of Iraq. All it says about Al-Khafaji is that he left the "occupation administration". 3 is a basic record information on a paper he wrote. At best the links tell us he exists, but do not help with GNG to presume notability and beyond that do not help make the case for notability and inclusion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per Salsa's observations and nomination. The sources stated in this AfD aren't eligible for GNG in my opinion, as well as the ones already existing Karnataka (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. As this AfD heads towards the end of its second week, I have two observations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A lack of interest in this subject both through editing and this AfD.
 * The one vote says "Weak keep" but makes a strong case for deletion citing difficulty in finding any "in depth sourcing" and providing 3 links that are nothing close to in-depth sourcing. All 3 are non-RS, 2 barely mention the subject's name saying almost nothing about him, and the other is a very short contributor profile on a media site. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist to assess newly found sources. As always, more participation would help here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per this, this, this, this. There are several coverages in Google Book search. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete, despite Twinkle1990's excellent work. I'd say that the 2003 interview and profile constitutes an item of in-depth coverage, but there isn't much else to combine it with to support a BLP-compliant article. (And to address a question that perhaps nobody but me was asking, I'll note in passing that while I am generally not a supporter of AFD's ill-considered tradition of ignoring persuasive authority from other Wikipedias, in this case ar:عصام_الخفاجي appears to have been translated from EN in 2020 and so its existence doesn't really reflect independent editorial judgment that we could learn from.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. All the sources in the article and mentioned in this AFD have various problems, including appearing like personal websites/blogs so unreliable, not containing significant coverage, being an interview so not independent, or being written by himself so not independent. Therefore, this individual doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. No merge or redirect targets come to mind. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2023 (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.