Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karim Said Atmani


 * 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   keep. ff m  00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Karim Said Atmani

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Sub-stub accusing someone of being a terrorist. No real details, with very thin sourcing for such an explosive charge, not to mention somewhat confusing--he's described as 'A Canadian living illegally in Montreal', which, if he really is Canadian, is difficult to imagine how it would be illegal for him live in his own country. Standard article improvement tags have been meet with outright hostility and removal, but little real improvement or, indeed, evidence that this living individual either qualifies for an article or deserves such labelling. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, Bad Faith Nomination, He's a convicted terrorist, and a quick google check confirms he meets notability guidelines, and I really don't know what your problem with the article is. As soon as the article was created, the nominator threw every single template on it he could find, including "This article is not linked", "This article needs attention from an expert in the field", "This article does not offer a worldwide perspective of the topic and focuses on a specific region's interpretation", "This article does not cite its souces" (even though it clearly does and did), "This article needs some attention to its lead paragraph" (...even though it's a stub?). I think I'll let a bot speak for my opinion of CalendarWatcher's "good faith" nomination. 12:56, September 18, 2008 JL-Bot (Talk | contribs) m (1,147 bytes) (removing orphan template as 99 article links exist). Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Every single tag applied--and, really, still applies--to the article, whatever minor dressing-up you've done. Your lead paragraph, in addition to dodging the issue of why the article exists in the first place, also contradicts itself: again, how can a Canadian be living 'illegally' in his own country? And as you've already been told--but have seen fit to dodge using the irrelevancy of the bot edit--its incoming links seem to solely come from the two ghastly over-sized navigation templates (CanadianTerrorism and FrenchTerrorism) which seem to list every single person of either nationality considered a 'terrorist' and deceptively inflate the count.
 * I'd suggest that knowing the latter and still making your inflated claim of regarding the number of links counts more objectively as 'bad faith' than your rather wild projections of motives you can't possibly know or derive. My problems with the article are exactly what I've said they are, your wild and fact-free accusations notwithstanding. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, Google Books alone lists 9 published books that mention Atmani's role in the War on Terror, he's not even one of the "extremely minor brother of a guy who drove a bus" guys. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Mention' is not sufficient by any standard. You certainly haven't even claimed, let alone demonstrated, that he's NOT 'one of the "extremely minor brother of a guy who drove a bus" guys'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, this guy plainly is notable, and this isn't some POVpushing page. There's plainly plenty of sourcing (and as such isn't a BLP violation), it provides a sufficiently worldwide view (there's presumably just one Karim Said Atmani running around), and as noted, there are tons of links.  Tags have been met with removal for good reason.  Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the word 'plainly' means what you think it means. The sourcing--what little that I've been able to check--shows nothing really biographical, and the 'tons of links' are, as I've pointed out, at best, inflated. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 100% of the sources are online, so there is no reason you can't check all of them if you so desire, but some are hosted on sites breaking copyright law by hosting them, so cannot be hotlinked in the references themselves...use google, you will find them. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 10:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does need improvement (particularly the "Canadian living illegally in Montreal" bit certainly needs to be fixed), but the subject is notable and the sources cited in the article already demonstrate this. In addition to the books mentioned by Sherurcij, GoogleNews results also show significant coverage, over an extended period of time in newsmedia of several countries. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Perhaps this is a keeper if Sherurcij can cite from any of those nine books--instead of referring to a Syrian news agency or from a summary of a report from Canadian security services. I find the lack of easily accessible documentation (as given in the references--I can't find those 'tons of links' in there) troubling. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you must have missed the Washington Post, Seattle Times, Kohlmann's book and such in the references already. More references are possible, and surely over time the article will improve and take in all references; but a keep/delete vote is based on its potential, not whether it's currently a featured article. Also, Assyria is not Syria :P Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the WashPost story.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourcing Commentary - one of the cites here names him as a document forger with a tenuous connection to a possible terrorist, but this book claims he was a "notable member of Al-qaida". This book seems to suggest that his link existed before the roommate even got into terrorism. And a Canadian legal finding pretty much only mentions him as someone for another person to avoid coming into contact with. After pulling one of these books in my local library, a careful examination of their sources reveals most of them are piles of very poorly referenced assertions, and I'm not sure they qualify as reliable sources. Also, no gnews hits, no a9, no good news coverage. I don't really know whether to keep or delete, but while there are sources of a secondary nature, they strike me as shaky at best. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then again, the article does not make any assertions that aren't born out by the references. They are not deceptive. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete borderline notability (document forger for a criminal org? wow!) & single event clearly applies.--Bsnowball (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:58, 21 September 2008 (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.