Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulqawi Yusuf

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 of the debate was No consensus (even after a double-listing), defaults to keep. --RoySmith 16:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdulqawi Yusuf

Nom but Withhold my vote re this Somali-born lawyer & international civil-servant with "262 of about 430" Google hits on

"Abdulqawi Yusuf"

of which all the first 20 seem to probably really be him. I see him, so far, as the kind of probably very highly trained professionals who do extremely important and high-responsibility work without making significant independent decisions in any areas that are controversial within their professions. The single thing that i've seen so far that goes beyond that is that he has authored at least one op-ed-sounding piece for a newspaper that's world-class or nearly so, suggesting that his work in the trenches may have equipped him to be an opinion molder. If i see no further evidence of notability, i will vote for Del.
--Jerzy•t 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I think this article is valid, yet it needs cleaned up and expanded. (Notorious4life 06:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

• Borderline: He has risen to a very high rank in his field, so I can see this going either way. It looks too much like a business bio -- the sort one finds on an organization's website -- rather than an honest to goodness encyclopedia biography. I'm not sure it's just a cleanup issue. Geogre 12:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's that close to the borderline, I vote keep. Better to err on the side of inclusion in cases like this, especially as his fame may grow. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're basing your vote, or conditional vote, on more than another editor's opinion that it is close to their unidentified borderline, please clarify.
      --Jerzy•t 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      
  • I was essentially voting to keep, too, but the amount of rewriting it needs is substantial, and it's beyond what folks usually do on Cleanup. It needs to be taken out of "official web page bio" format (cut the education and job credentials, e.g.) and it needs new information on notable accomplishments and policy positions taken by him in his official UN role. Perhaps list on Articles Needing Attention, if there is something like that anymore. Geogre 11:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • His "high rank" needs better verification for anyone exiled to both the

    Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts on the Preliminary Draft Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts on the Preliminary Draft Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Content

    and the

    Second session of the meeting of intergovernmental experts on the preliminary draft convention on the protection of the div..

    and is listed as the third person from the UNESCO (not the UN) secretariat, behind two people with no WP articles. Are organizations' lawyers notable people? That should be limited by the notability of the organization in question; we have 1179 uses of Template:Infobox Company (which includes the string "key people"), and 22 hits on

    site:en.wikipedia.org "chief counsel" OR "general counsel" "key people"

    Of these, only 9 (Motorola, Élan, Neopets, Dun & Bradstreet, UBS AG, Pixar, MyFamily.com, Inc., Adobe Systems, and Goldman Sachs) identify anyone by name as the current counsel someone, and none of these have bio articles; Allegheny Technologies has an ext lk only, to a page on the company website for their gen. counsel (who also has 2.5 other titles) but again no WP bio. (Note that those non-current counsel who are identified are generally notable for what they stole, not for their position.) Litigation specialist companies like Exxon and Microsoft apparently don't have notable lawyers, and i doubt UNESCO does -- even if perhaps the Sec Gen of the UN does.

  --Jerzy•t 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  

• Comment. A new search on

"Abdulqawi Yusuf" OR "Abdulqawi A Yusuf"

produces only about a 10% increase, "294 of about 508" hits.
--Jerzy•t 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Del, in place of my previously withheld vote. I withheld hoping someone else would bring forward evidence of notability, which has not occurred. I have now scanned all the excerpts among his Google hits, and what i find is instead evidence of non-notability. Here is a sample, his mention only in footnote 101, which i copied from p. 45 of the Google-cache of # 75 of about 208, a PDF headed "EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANTING OF TARIFF ...":

  Commenting upon Paragraph 3(c), Abdulqawi Yusuf, (op.cit. p.91) notes that Developed countries wishing to accord preferential treatment are required to do it in such a way as to respond positively to their development, financial and trade needs. Moreover, in view of the evolving nature of such needs, and the different degrees of development of the beneficiaries, preferential arrangements must be modified, if necessary, in order to meet the varying requirements of developing States. In other words, the specific circumstances and the degree of development of each country must be taken into account in such arrangements.

  More typically his hits are simply citations of legal technical works that he is editor, co-author, etc. of.

  I've also now read the op-ed i mentioned above:

  http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/01/21/edyusuf_ed3_.php#

  It is not the beginning of a sustained role as an opinion molder, inasmuch as it apparently stands alone as his sole op-ed work, 22 months later. IMO it is unremarkable: an expression of concern that makes no claim to have uncovered anything previously unknown, and expresses no startling views.
  --Jerzy•t 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  

• Procedure. I may be responsible for the sparse and diffident response here, by withholding my vote, failing to offer research, and listing the AfD just before what is for many of the large American contingent of editors a long-weekend holiday. I'm putting this down for another 5 days' consideration, i.e. thru Dec. 2 UTC, in hopes of a better basis for decision.
  --Jerzy•t 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  
• Delete as not notable enough. There are tens of thousands of fairly senior civil servants and officials who are not notable enough for wikipedia Bwithh 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC).
  --User:Gul86•[[User talk:Gul86]23:57, 04 December 2005 (UTC)
  
• Keep due to notability. Considering the fact that he is a member of the Institut de droit international which is a body which many consider consists of the best international lawyers in the world, his qualification to be a member of such an organization is in itself reason to keep the article. After researching him further, his substantial work on the African Yearbook of International Law seems to be very respected, and quite accessible suggesting a popularity. A quick search on amazon will provide results for many of his other works. Regarding google results their are 820, the majority of which relate to him directly regarding his work on international law, development law, or even intellectual property. As a founder of the African Foundation for International Law he seems to be more of a molder than some contributors discussion make out, due to the fact that african international law is in need of much development, and he seems to be a significant contributor to it. He is even part of the Contemporary African Database. I would certainly vote to keep the article but would suggest some editing of the article to ameliorate it, and perhaps expound upon his importance as well as that of his work.

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.