Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Hamed


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Omar Hamed

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Strong suggestion of self-editing by subject of page. Much information is superfluous. Much information lacks a reliable source. Lumin8 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  20:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The October 2007 terror raids are of huge popular interest in New Zealand and the trials are going to be happening over the next 12 months, which is going to lead to lots of media coverage (of course, everything is sub justice until then, so there are lots of people who can't say/write stuff at the moment). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The October 2007 terror raids are of huge popular interest in New Zealand and the trials are going to be happening over the next 12 months, which is going to lead to lots of media coverage (of course, everything is sub justice until then, so there are lots of people who can't say/write stuff at the moment). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The raids are obviously quite notable. Hamed, however, does not appear to be.   Ravenswing  15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Fairly notable.Hillcountries (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relist comment: Subject is a BLP and deserves extra attention. None of the comments so far are very useful, as they only assert that the subject is (or is not) notable, but do not address the several sources now in the article and explain why these sources are (or are not) sufficient for notability.  Sandstein   10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: @Sandstein - 4 out of the 6 cited sources are of low quality. 2 of the sources originate from brief articles in the New Zealand Herald, a respected newspaper. However, the scoop.co.nz source is merely a biased press release, two of the cited links no longer exist (and did not originate from a noteworthy source regardless), and the final link refers to the highly obscure magazine of the little-known New Zealand "Workers' Party" - a party that received 0.04% of the popular vote in the 2008 elections. Due to the low quality of the sources, lack of notability of the subject, and strong possibility of bias and/or self-editing, I stand by my decision to nominate this article for deletion. Lumin8 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The case is notable, the individual in question isn't. The main article on the case can easily accommodate those involved and any future developments of note. Jørdan 13:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think keep Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Outside of the raids, seems low profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efil's god (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still Delete - Has done nothing notable. Linking to non-existent articles seems more of an attempt to gain notability through his article rather than prove it. Belonging to a few organisations is certainly not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: let the matter rest until the upcoming trials, which media reports suggest are going to do more to show the individuals individually, with separate trails for some. If nothing else, the trials are likely to lead to the publications of more details and the dropping of suppression injunctions. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still Delete - The trials are not scheduled until August, and Hamed is not actually charged with anything notable (i.e. terrorism), he is charged with possessing a firearm. If everyone charged with possessing a firearm had a wikipedia page, wiki would be very crowded. Lumin8 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2011 (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.