Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riyadh Shikawi


 * 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. no consensus for deletion JForget  21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Riyadh Shikawi

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

The attempt to find more reliable sources has failed. The merge proposal has been on the page for ages now. No signs of interest or explanations are given on both talk pages. This article here is solely base on the primary source and the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while. For me it looks 99 % sure that it is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and in this case i do not think there is much to merge. Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi has already a section about the rendition, maybe just the fact that he was on the FBI list and then delete and redirect. If we speak about two different individuals than this article should be deleted because it fails WP:BIO notability and my attempt to find reliable secondary sources have failed. IQinn (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, "the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while" seems to miss the fact he was arrested by the CIA, handed over to Jordan, put in Guantanamo Bay....he's somebody a lot more happened to than simply "his name appeared on a list for a while". And generally when the FBI issues a terrorism alert, Wikipedia (rightly) adds an article on the subjects. However, if it is shown that it's the same as the other article, then Merge is appropriate. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Arrested by the CIA, handed over to Jordan, put in Guantanamo Bay..." not in the article so far. Where are the sources for that? Would it be a sign that they are the same person? There is nothing more than that he was on the FBI list for a while. Could you please add the sources if you have? IQinn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction to the article says, a Yemeni who is currently held at Guantanamo...He was named as a suspect in a Yemen plot...the FBI discovered that he had been arrested by the CIA and rendered to Jordan. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's all not sourced. IQinn (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is not the basis for an AFD, it's the basis for an unsourced tag. I don't mind you adding such a tag - and if nothing can be found in a few months, revisiting the idea of an AFD. I do however mind the idea of deleting an article about an apparently very notable person because people are too lazy to fact-check. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are notable? The creator may say they are notable, but I could create an article saying "TParis00ap is president of the world from 1987-Present".  Such a claim would suggest I am notable and by your logic the article should stay until such a time as WP:RS are not found in a few months.  WP:V states that the threshold for inclusion is verfiability, not truth.  If the "very notable" assertion were sourced so it could be proven, than you would have an argument.  But unless it can be verfied, then that sentance cannot support WP:N.  Also WP:V puts the burden of sources on the content creator, not the deletion nominator.  Unsourced material may be questioned and suggested for deletion.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The information was added by a fairly trustworthy editor with 2000+ edits on en.WP - I would give him the benefit of the doubt, although it is legitimate to ask him to add citations and footnotes - WP did not used to work that way, and many editors are/were unaware of the need for footnoting each claim when many of "these" articles were created. Looking at this government publication, this book, and a Google News Archive search...he seems to be who the article claims he is. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * {edit conflict) It is amazing. How many people are there now, that you have attacked in an uncivil way - whenever somebody nominated an article from your project - to Afd for discussion? More than ten? There was time enough to fix it. And you could have fixed it now and you still have time to fix it. This article has been a problem for years. Do not waste time with attacking people. IQinn (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Iqinn: I don't see any apparent attacks about this subject from User:Sherurcij, but if you know of any I would suggest you bring it to WP:DR instead of here. This discussion should be about the subject, not about incivility by any of the contributors.  Let's all refrain from personal attacks here please.  I'm not sure if the "too lazy" comment was interpreted by you as an attack, but I hope you understand he did not say you were lazy.  He could have meant the content creator was lazy not to add the source.  Please always WP:AGF.  I suggest a cookie of peace?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, TParis is correct that my reference to "laziness" is a general inference of an "unreferenced fact". You, me, the creator, the last person to view the article, we all should have spent 20 minutes adding references. We didn't. But that's cause for a clean-up of the article, not its deletion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way i did check more than 20 minutes and when there is nothing to add than it's time for AfD IQinn (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've both acted in in good faith. User:Iqinn probobly did spend more than 20 minutes and did his best to find sources.  Most folks have different techniques of finding sources and some techniques are better in certain circumstances than others.  I find tweaking google searches even a little will produce significantly different results.  It's all about having the gut feeling about how to type a search to get the desired results.  Apparently User:Sherurcij has found some creditable sources that should be included if we can work it out.  I'll see what I can do with what was provided and add the others to "External links".  WP:V] requires claims to be verified, but it is obvious from the sources provided in this debate that the subject is notable.  But unless we can figure out a way to add the sources, we can't meet [[WP:V.  Luckily, WP:V doesn't require WP:RS to be easily verified, only that it is possible.  I'll work it a little.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom. The user's argument for keep is based on unsourced claims.  They are not independantly verifiable.  The nom already tried to find sources and could not.  User:Sherurcij is suggesting that if someone wrote an autobiogaphy with claims of notability, they should be kept.  As far as I know, that is only enough to save someone from WP:CSD, not WP:AfD.  Apologies if that is not the case, but that is how I read it.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I made some changes with the sources suggested by User:Sherurcij but I still support my delete !vote. I made a good faith effort to fix references and use the ones provided.  Some of the material provided I did not have the capability to add.  However, I would like to note that many of the sources have minute mentions of the subject as an associate of AL-RABEEI which would not support WP:N requirement for significant coverage.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Sherurcij, and the sources he has linked above. The article meets WP:N.  Cerebellum (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check the sources? Most are trivial mentions that he is an aquaintance of someone else or that he was part of 8 other people removed from the FBI list.  Almost none have significant coverage and almost all are trivial mentions.  I only say most because I cannot read the books but the snippets suggest the same trivial mentions.  WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources."  User:Sherurcij has proven he exists, not that he is notable.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources do not suggest he was a tailor who made a suit of clothes for notable people, they suggest he was a terrorist and the subject of an international manhunt. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got no argument from me there. But they don't say why he was significant or more important than any other terrorist out there.  Should we have a page for anyone who has ever held a gun for Al Queda or the Taliban?  We need to know why he was significantly more important than any other terrorist.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Al-Qaeda, perhaps. The Taliban, obviously not. Should we have an article on every bank robber? No. Should we have an article on every bank robber who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list and triggered an international manhunt? Yes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, you would have sources saying "He robbed a bank". In this case, we do not have a source that says what he did.  Only that he was an aquaintance of someone else and the FBI wanted him.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Appears to satisfy the GNG; difficulty in categorizing reasons for coverage not grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is difficulty in coverage not grounds for deletion? The key idea for WP:GNG is significant coverage.  This subject does not have any significant coverage.  He has quite a few trivial mentions focusing on his removal from the FBI list and nothing else.  Please check the sources.  WP:V states that the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.  We cannot verify anything significant about this person.  This may also be a WP:BLP issue (not well versed in BLP).  There are quite a few unsourced claims in there.  If the unsourced libeus is removed and the trivial sourced content is removed - we no longer have even a stub.--v/r - TP 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Impossibility to find sources to verify is grounds for deletion; difficulty with the sources is not. And yes, we should have an article about every individual on the most wanted list: that's a clear sign of national-level importance as a suspect or criminal. The FBI is the appropriate agency to determine that, not Wikipedia.  Though they may sometimes jump to unwarranted conclusions, nonetheless they count as an adequately  RS.     DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. This article asserts that Riyadh Shikawi's real name is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and links to that page, which is a redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. If they are the same person, they don't need two separate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Sheru.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2009 (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.