Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riad (al-Qaeda host)


 * 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   no consensus. The article was significantly expanded with sources after the last "delete" opinion, so it is not clear whether all these "delete" opinions apply any more.  Sandstein  04:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Riad (al-Qaeda host)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only briefly mentioned in a single judicial transcript - falls far far below any notability requirements. Fails WP:V as well since trial testimony does not prove the subject's existence. Prod was declined about a month ago. Borderline A7 and A1 case (since the article does not provide sufficient context to properly identify its subject). Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. Sharqawi is a Guantanamo captive who was considered t enough of a threat and source of intelligence that he spent years in the CIA's network of clandestine interrogation centers prior to being transferred to military custody in Guantanamo in September 2004.  Sharqawi is routinely identified as "Riyadh the facilitator".  He is widely identified as having run al Qaeda's guest houses in Karachi -- essentially the same assertion as leveled against "Riad" in the references to this article.  Riyadh and Riad are merely two different transliterations of the same Arabic name.  Following the prod mentioned above I suggested the merge and redirect of this article to the Sharqawi article, which I frankly considered open and shut.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe that Riad/Riyadh is the same person as Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi and have reliable sources to that effect, you are certainly free to add that information to the Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi article. A merge is not needed for that and there is nothing in the current text of Riad (al-Qaeda host) article to indicate that he is Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. A merge as an AfD outcome is only necessary when a significant amount of verifiable information is at stake. This is not the case here - trial testimony by terrorism suspects is not a reliable source and does not pass WP:V. Moreover, a merge results in a redirect which is not appropriate here. Redirects are meant for likely search terms, which "Riad (al-Qaeda host)" certainly is not. A plain "delete" is appropriate here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you have just tried to add text to this article equating its subject with Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. This action is inappropriate and disruptive. If you believe that that the subject of this article is Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi, you should be adding the corresponding info directly to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi article, not to this one. Artificially and deliberately building up a WP:Content fork of Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi and then arguing against deletion is a form of disruptive editing. Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't at this point have a view as to a !vote on the issue, I think the improvement of the article is not only appropriate but laudable. The addition of the sourced text is typical in a well-considered AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a source is only laudable and appropriate if the desired outcome is keeping the article. Knowingly and deliberately building up a content fork of an existing article is neither laudable nor appropriate, it is disruptive. It is also disruptive and absurd to keep adding new info to the page and then arguing for merging this article somewhere else. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that is your point of view. I differ.  There is nothing inconsistent between adding material, and arguing for merger -- presumably, that argues for merger of the added material.  Other editors can decide for themselves whether it enhances the article to the point that it calls for keeping the article, or calls for merging the article, or neither -- but in no way do I see it as "disruptive and absurd".  That strikes me as perhaps being slightly strident language to describe the addition of well-sourced text to the article.  But, of course, you are welcome to disagree.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have frequently added sources to an article at AfD to see how far it could be improved--and if I conclude it can not be  improved enough, I have !voted delete or merge. Thee's no way of knowing how far an article can be improved unless you try. Of course, if one does this with bad judgement the work may well be wasted, but if one thinks it worth the effort, one should be encouraged to make the =attempt.    DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a phenomenon I have encountered occasionally in other afd. I have seen the occasional nominator appear to lose their cool, and get so emotionally involved in seeing their nomination for deletion succeed, that they work to thwart good faith attempts to address the concerns raised in the afd and start reverting good faith attempts to expand and improve the article.  They want other contributors weighing in on the afd to make their decision based on the state of the article, when they made the nomination -- not after it had been expanded and improved.  Is that what has happened here?  I am afraid it has.
 * I did some google searching, found lots of additional references, and spent considerable time in the update you excised. One thing  I found was that there were multiple captives analysts suspected of being "Riyadh the facilitator".  I regard that as remarkable.  I don't think I owe anyone an apology for giving my initial merge suggestion additional thought, after finding a reference that documented that multiple captives were suspected of being Riyadh the facilitator.  Frankly, I think it was a mistake for you to state or imply that I have been acting in bad faith.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, quite a no-brainer. IQinn (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I am going to make further changes to this article, and I would appreciate it if those who have voiced "delete" opinions -- and have therefore signalled that they do not think the article can be improved -- would refrain from reverting these improvements. Geo Swan (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I would appreciate when you would stop adding information that is unsourced and violates BLP like this one and i will continue to remove such information what is not an improvement but rather a disruption. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You asserted that this edit of mine wasn't referenced. However, the paragraph where you excised that sentence included multiple references that confirmed that Sharqawi is the captive American intelligence officials decided to put forward as the real "Riyadh the facilitator".  Two of those references explicitly quoted a passage that confirmed this identification, so you didn't even need to go to any of the references to confirm the identification.
 * A section of the following reference was entitled: "Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi (Riyadh the facilitator)". Did you check any of the references, prior to claiming I was adding unreferenced assertions?
 * You have voiced a delete opinion here. You should only do this is you think the article could never be improved.  And if you think it can't be improved, say so here, or on the talk page.  Your attempts to "improve" the article, by reverting my improvements -- they are simply inappropriate from anyone on record with a "delete" opinion, even if your claims weren't incorrect.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claims that i removed were un-sourced and they are still un-sourced. You are messing up various sources, names and identities. Please be more careful.
 * Your accusation of bad faith are uncivil and disruptive and i remember tons of other Afd's where you acted in a similar way whenever someone put any of your articles up for discussion you go mad. Your continuous uncivil behavior is highly disruptive and i think we have to deal with it sooner or later.
 * I have improved the article as you did and that is a good thing. Should the article still be deleted? Yes looking at it in it's improved form the reason for delete keep the same. I do not see any reason why we should have this article on a pseudonym or nom de guerre or whatever you want to call it now. IQinn (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claims that i removed were un-sourced and they are still un-sourced. You are messing up various sources, names and identities. Please be more careful.
 * Your accusation of bad faith are uncivil and disruptive and i remember tons of other Afd's where you acted in a similar way whenever someone put any of your articles up for discussion you go mad. Your continuous uncivil behavior is highly disruptive and i think we have to deal with it sooner or later.
 * I have improved the article as you did and that is a good thing. Should the article still be deleted? Yes looking at it in it's improved form the reason for delete keep the same. I do not see any reason why we should have this article on a pseudonym or nom de guerre or whatever you want to call it now. IQinn (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In this case (unlike some similar articles) there are enough sources. As for naming, we use whatever name we have, Many articles are about people known by pseudonyms--even contested pseudonyms.  Name problems ≠  lack of notability.    DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Per DGG, sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2010 (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.