Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Ait Idir


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mustafa Ait Idir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of the legacy pages coming from a time when we did not really enforce the need for Wikipedia to be built on secondary sources. It is also POV pushing in its very existence. It is not built on secondary sources, and any secondary sources there are make only very passing mentions to Ait Idir, it is built almost entirely on primary sources, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia, and is clearly not built on indepdent, reliable, 3rd-party secondary sources John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and warn the nominator that competence and honesty are required. This nomination is utter nonsense. It is utterly false to say that the article "is not built on secondary sources". The article includes no fewer than seven news articles as sources, including pieces from the Boston Globe, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and two from the Washington Post. These sources substantiate virtually every salient claim in the article. The nominator's statement that "any secondary sources there are make only very passing mentions to Ait Idir" is utterly false. The Boston Globe piece describes Idir as the central figure in the case it discusses. The first WaPo article discusses Idir's testimony in some detail. The second WaPo article is almost entirely devoted to Idir. An honest, competent editor would not have made the statements in this nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator, I am concerned over whether you understand your obligations under WP:BEFORE. Aren't you supposed to do your best to conduct your own meaningful web search, so you confirm or refute for yourself whether the underlying topic meets our inclusion criteria?  If you made an effort to comply with your obigation, I'd be happy to help you improve your web search skills.
 * I am working on an essay, User:Geo Swan/opinions/When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward. Mustafa Ait Idir is an example of a topic where complying with BEFORE is not straighforward, as his name has been transliterated multiple ways from Arabic to English.  Different transliterations include:
 * Mustafa Ait Idir
 * Mustafa Ait Idr
 * Mustapha Ait Idir
 * Mustapha Ait Idr
 * Mustafa Idir
 * Mustafa Idr
 * Mustapha Idir
 * Mustapha Idr
 * If you did a web search, but your search didn't include all the transliterations, your web search fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - disclaimer, I started this article. As above, nomination does not comply with BEFORE, and subject clearly measures up to GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I don’t see any merit in this nomination. The article is well-sourced. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - While over-reliance on primary sources is a problem in an article, only the failure to have more than one GNG-qualifying reliable source would give ground for deletion. Even besides the BEFORE issue with the nom, this is a clear keep. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - disclaimer, I started this article. As above, nomination does not comply with BEFORE, and subject clearly measures up to GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I don’t see any merit in this nomination. The article is well-sourced. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - While over-reliance on primary sources is a problem in an article, only the failure to have more than one GNG-qualifying reliable source would give ground for deletion. Even besides the BEFORE issue with the nom, this is a clear keep. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 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.