Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadeq Mallallah


 * 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 AfD failed. Sherurcij obviously meant well, but he should not have attempted to close the AfD himself, as there are other voices for deletion apart from his, and as it is he hasn't closed it properly (that's what I'm doing now with the coloured background etc - until this is done, the AfD still appears in the lists of open AfDs). When he removed the tag, he should have been reverted. AfDs require that the tag remain on the article for the duration so that everyone knows it's going on who should know; deletion review has invalidated AfDs where this didn't happen and I'm forced to do so here.

Though it may be somewhat moot, as from the discussion here, a consensus doesn't seem to have been reached anyway. If anyone still feels that notability is in doubt, this AfD should not prejudice another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadeq Mallallah
Delete, while a bit of work could make the subject a bit more NPOV, (he was beheaded for apostasy presumably, not "for owning a bible"), the fact remains that there is absolutely zero evidence that he ever existed...900 google hits, all of them are Wiki mirrors, or copy/paste the exact phrase "In 1994, Sadeq Mallallah was beheaded for owning a Bible". The only quasi-basis for the name is seen in a statement made by the head of the Saudi Institute in Washington, Ali al-Ahmed, who said "In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible.", he offered no evidence or reference, and none was ever given by anybody else. No news agency ever reported such a beheading (and it certainly would've been a dear pet for media sensationalism at the time, if it were true). Basically it comes down to a completely non-notable person making an illustration of his point by inserting a name, fictitious, misremembered or actual. In short, let's not allow ourselves to further the misinformation out there...or else I want to start an article about how my priest discussed "There was a guy named Jack Straw, who was ploughing his fields one afternoon, when..." as a sermon illustration last Sunday. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment, I just found this message from Jimbo, which I feel (indirectly) supports the removal of the article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that this is hardly "I heard it somewhere." This is the Wall Street Journal.  A2Kafir 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - A2Kafir is the author of the disputed page, just for reference. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Beyond the passing reference in a single Wall Street Journal op-ed, I can't find any other confirmation of the subject's existence or that he was executed. Even if that could be verified, it might be better covered in a paragraph in Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia rather than a separate biographical article. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; note the difficulty in ferreting out information on someone with an Arabic name that is subject to multiple spellings, as this one is for both first and last name (remember Khadafy/Qaddafi/Quadafi/Gadafi, etc. spellings for the leader of Libya). Further, future Arabic-speaking contributers may find further information on this fellow using his Arabic name (for instance, direct from Saudi judicial records).  I also see no reason to challenge the WSJ article as a source simply because there aren't too many other people mentioning this fellow on-line.  A2Kafir 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, a Wall Street Journal article meets the criteria of WP:V, an op-ed is more like an internal Letter to the Editor, and does not. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Better sourcing for the claim is submission to the U.S. House as testimony, see . However, this and the above boil down to a single source making the identical statement in multiple venues.  The event occurred in the pre-web era, so online sources naturally are limited.   and  state that there was an article in the Wasington Post on 1 October 1992, stating that Sadeq Abdul Kareem Malallah was executed on 3 September 1992 for possibly different reasons.  I'm reasonably comfortable that the year is an error in the article and that the two people are the same person.  I'm not certan if WP:BIO notability exists, but given coverage by a major newspaper on a different continent, a case can be made that it does exist.  GRBerry 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you for the third link you provide, I'll rewrite the article to reflect the actual charges against him, and remove the AFD. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep of the new version. I'm not entirely convinced of WP:BIO notability.  If the blogosphere were print media, it would be a slam dunk case that he is notable, but we discriminate against blogs because they are unreliable.  And gee, he's in the blogs because they are unreliable.  GRBerry 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge into Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia; this does not seem to be a hoax, but even if this person's demise is verifiable, that doesn't make him notable. Vectro 21:34, 23 October 2006 (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.