Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn- I'm an idiot, and didn't research this properly. I will redirect the article to the more substantial article on the same person. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a news service. This person has no notability outside of certain court cases, and not much notability within them. We cannot have a full biography about this person, and the article could potentially have coatrack and BLP problems. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT, seems to be a reference to Jamal al-Bedawi Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I think this was an overly hasty afd.
 * Note: Nominator placed this nomination FIVE MINUTES after the article was created. The various deletion policies and guidelines urge nominators to refrain from nominating articles that have just been created for deletion, because some people start them in stages.  The result of overly hasty nominations is that those starting those articles have to stop working on the text of the article, and respond to the overly-hasty nomination.
 * The guy is listed on the FBI's "Most wanted terrorist" list, for crying out loud. Don't responsible nominators spend fifteen seconds doing a web-search, prior to making a nomination, so they don't waste everyone' time?  Aren't responsible nominators supposed to consider whether the topic of the article merits coverage, and not judge newly created articles merely on their nascent state?  Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right, this is a hasty nomination. I disagree with hanging around for six weeks while editors look for sources that don't exist, but I do admit I was an idiot not to check for more sources myself. As the article mentioned only trivial mentions in the case against another suspect, I assumed there wasn't much to this guy. As such, I will withdraw my nomination and redirect this article to the more substantial one on the same subject. Apologies. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (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.