Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi (2nd nomination)


 * 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 This is mainly a procedural close, but can also be viewed as a speedy keep. The nominator has called for the article to be kept, and appears to be using this to somehow invalidate a redirect discussion. An article should only be nominated for deletion if the nominator believes it should be deleted. AniMate 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tareq Salahi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Procedural nomination. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about reducing the article to a mere redirect from editors who claim the subject is not worth a full article; since it would destroy a lot of non-redundant information about the subject, redirect and deletion would be identical outcomes. Therefore I nominate the article to put what is, actually, a deletion discussion in the proper venue and seeking proper consensus - I personally support keeping the article (see !vote below) Cycl o pia  talk  21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per previous AfD. Subject is notable for multiple events - even if he is mostly famous for one, sources can be found on other aspects and controversies of his life, therefore WP:BLP1E is an invalid concern. More than 70 sources indicate that subject is absolutely notable. Redirection or merging is also not an option given the huge amount of information which would not be relevant to the often proposed merge target. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - procedurally user shouldn't really be nominating article s for deletion and then voting keep, it makes a mockery of the process. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, why? Nominate != endorse. I nominated because I want a proper, regulated discussion to be had to seek consensus. It is not the first time people nominate articles on such grounds. Usually a nominator wants the article deleted, but it's not a prerequisite, as far as I know. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was involved in such a nomination and no one could understand it, either you want it deleting or you are in the wrong place and should have stayed on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand that a deletion discussion has to be held at AfD, I doubt I can help you. There is a deletion discussion in the wrong venue (the talk page). I put up the proper place where to discuss that. That I want it to be kept or deleted is irrelevant -what is relevant is that this is the correct venue with the correct procedure to discuss a deletion. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not lie about what others are discussing elsewhere. A discussion regarding whether or not to redirect an article is not analogous to a discussion to delete an article.  Redirect.  Deletion.  Not synonyms. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not lying: the nomination clearly states that, formally, the discussion is about a redirect, but in practice it is deletion that it is being discussed. A redirect is not an article, it is a pointer. I would anyway agree with you that AfD wouldn't be needed if most content on the article was already in the proposed target, but apart from the crashing incident, other information about the subject is unlikely to pop out there. That said, if you still disagree, well, you were bold in attempting the redirect; I boldly created a venue because I believe it is the better one. Whatever you think of my decision, we now have a proper chance to get a more sound and objective consensus than in a talk page discussion, so I'd say let's stop the self-referential bickering on this AfD and let's see how it plays out. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the point of AFD and no one has nominated it for deletion and there is an outcome created as in Keep or delete or whatever, by bringing it here when you want the article kept you are using the process in a way it is not intended. Because you have done that, there is no nominator and no deletion rationale, poor show if you ask me, a waste of process and it should be deleted (this AFD) Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one nominated it for deletion, then on which page are you commenting? I will answer for you: I nominated it. I want it kept but I nominated it the same. The process is intended to decide if an article is to be deleted or not: who cares about the nominator's thoughts on the outcome? It's proper process I want. -- Cycl o pia  talk  12:20 am, Today (UTC+0)
 * How you can claim to want proper process and yet you have created this falsehood is beyond me, there is no deletion rational for users to comment on because there is no nominator. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry it is beyond you, but again, if you can't understand deletions have to be discussed at AfD, and if you refuse to acknowledge Tarc's redirect attempt amounted, in spirit and in practice, to deletion, then I don't know what to tell you. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Procedural close, but barring that, Redirect - The nominator has regrettably hijacked a redirect discussion on the subject's talk page, and as a literal delete is really not on the table, this really didn't need to come to AfD. Since we're here though, we really just have a classic WP:BLP1E; all this person is known for is gate-crashing a White House gathering.  The article has been built up with substantial puffery since then in an attempt to address his one-trick-pony, but all we have are tales of winery founding, charitable awards, an interest in polo.  All coverage stems from a "who the fuck is this guy anyways?" media blitz that happened following the gate-crash.  I'll note that his wife and fellow crasher has a redirect, not an article.  Also, I note that a DRV last year overturned the keep to no-consensus, with a strong urging to involved parties (I was not one at the time, for the record) to consider the merits of the merge proposal.  This was done and enacted Feb 2010, only to be undone in 2010, and here we are now.  The prior consensus to redirect should be restored, especially as the page at the time is not substantially different from the present version.  It is regrettable that this issue was not brought up as soon as the page was unilaterally restored, but we can't change that now. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is actually not a bad forum for discussing what amounts to the removal of an article from the mainspace. There has been sufficient nontrivial discussion focussed on the subject to pass WP:BIO, and surmount WP:BLP1E: the subject's role in the events was major, well documented, and spawned a lot of coverage of the subject personally which was persistent. It's certainly a judgment call whether one thinks that coverage was persistent and whether the subject is likely to become low profile. To the first, I do, and to the second, given that the subject actively courts media attention, I find the "low profile" of this subject to be a dubious proposition. Ray  Talk 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural close - bad faith nomination to gain the upper hand in a content dispute about the right role of tabloid tittle-tattle in a biography that amounts to an attack page. Discussions about whether a merger with the subject that brought this guy into the limelight do not belong on AfD, so this entire AfD is moot.  --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please consider retracting your statements about bad faith. I can't see how proposing an article for deletion amounts to "bad faith" and "gaining the upper hand" -if anything, I put the article at risk so I did it against my interests. I simply put a deletion discussion in its proper place. We are not talking about a merger, we are talking about a redirect; the article content (including all the biographical material not inherent to the merge target) would be deleted. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Note that I, for one, first looked at Salahi's page due to the fact that he is on a reality show, which is related to but not derived from the purported "1E". Salahi seems to have three levels of notoriety to me. (1) Minor and non-WP pageworthy status as a local person of interest, covered in Washington Post for the Polo and Winery stuff. This alone would not merit page status. (2) Central character on well-known reality TV show, in fact, one of two major centers of attention on said show. This alone might merit page status, q.v. David Rainey. Go delete the non-remembered Real Worlders before bothering about Salahi. (3) the infamous event. Hardly a 1E in my estimate, more like a 2.5E, with plenty of 0.5E peoples' pages sitting out there to spend time worrying about deleting first. I think those in support of deletion or merger simply mistake the sheer magnitude of the major event for it being the only reason for notoriety, but you're eating poisonous fruit from the tree... 74.7.121.69 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 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.