Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabri Benkahla


 * 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. If an article on the Virginia paintball case existed, then the result would be to merge this into that article per WP:BLP1E. Barring that, there is not much that can be done based on this AfD. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sabri Benkahla

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP1E. While the article may look impressive, most of the sources are primary in nature - I have been unable to find evidence that he reaches the standard required for a BLP covered for a single set of events. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have heard about this case. It has been under appeal so it doesnt fall under onetime event.. etc etc. I say keep anyway and awaits a consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also good sourcing, and alot of different twists and turns that makes this case a not be "just another criminal case" but quite the opposit. Unique.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is there good sourcing exactly? Most of it is primary. The fact that the case is now appellate in nature does not mean it isn't a single chain of events. The fact that you have heard about it is completely irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sourcing is not bad sourcing. Check WP:PRIMARY again. Making unsupported claims on the basis of primary sources is bad practice. But then, so is requiring that sources other than primary ones be used, as the Wikipedia rules N, GNG, and others have come to do, through erroneous instruction creep. See Articles for deletion/Yusif Khalil Abdallah Nur. Anarchangel (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * "I have heard about this case" ? Sounds like something we need to make a new listing at WP:ATA for.  A case being under appeal does not qualify as a "second event"; that is a seriously warping of what 1E policy is meant to cover. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability and references are adequate.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Notability and reverences" do not address the concern that the person is known/notable for only one event. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:N/CA. I have added a few references.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then write an article on the overall crime/arrest of the group of people. The individuals are not notable enough for their own articles. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * article on Virginia Jihad Network exists but he was exonerated there. his case is a Cause célèbre for those who feel that muslims in USA are discriminated by USA PATRIOT Act.  Therein lies the notability of this high profile criminal and his ongoing legal issues involving American Civil Liberties Union which are well covered in primary and secondary RS.  agree article needs to be improved.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - What a god-awful article, it reads like a prisoner advocacy blog. All we have here is a person who has been accused of terrorist activities, tried, and sentenced.  No lasting significance or historical impact, no long-term coverage in reliable sources.  All that can really be said about this is that "here's what happened, here's the sentence, here's where he is now".  There is a lot of verbiage and excess detail in the article that really shouldn't be there, i.e. solitary confinement conditions.  Perhaps the overall event of the "Virginal paintball" arrests is notable, and if there is an article for that already, they can be a redirect.  But there is no justification for a standalone bio, at all. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Per the significant secondary coverage in the Washington Post and BBC references included in the article, or better, merge to an article on the Virginia paintball jihadists, per Tarc's suggestion. Prune the article of any POV verbiage and excess detail. Edison (talk) 04:54, 25 February 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.