Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyad Ismail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was withdrawn by nominator per improvement of article. John254 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eyad Ismail
This article is comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, and qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G10 and WP:BLP. WP:BLP, particularly, states thatHowever, an administrator removed the speedy deletion request from this article. John254 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).
- Delete if not referenced - Per nom. If no references can be added to this article, then Delete. --Ozgod 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Weak KeepI agree with it not fitting G10, but lack of references in addition to the insane shortness makes it not really worthy and see below. --Whstchy 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Add on comment If it can be shown how he was involved exactly in addition to what I said before, then I may switch. --Whstchy 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)- Comment I added a link to Homeland security. It does not fit G10 and it's been around since 2003 unsourced true. 240 years in prison convicted in the WTC bombing seems to confer some notability. It was not a speedy, the community needs to decide. --Dakota 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment two things, one, is this discussion done? And two, it's more than likely that an article in regards to a criminal or terrorist despite having a NPOV, will have a "negative overtone" to it, just because of the subject matter involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whstchy (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 May 2007
- Yes, the discussion's done. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I speeded this as a BLP (negative and unreferenced), but it has now been undeleted by Freakofnurture (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - (who might have had the courtesy to discuss/inform me - but whatever.) - so I am reopening this afd.--Docg 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't understand why this was previously closed after hardly any discussion in the first instance. This article is now meticulously sourced, it discusses the facts of the case in very neutral language and I don't understand the desire to delete it. The man was convicted of trying to blow up the World Trade Centre in a case which was covered by every major newspaper in the world. How is this not notable? The article has 'negative information' about this person because he was sentenced to 240 years in prison for attempted mass murder. The article should have been improved, as it has been, rather than nominated for deletion then summarily deleted after barely any debate. Nick mallory 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Notability was not a factor in the speedy deletion decision, as has already been explained twice: once above and once in the deletion summary. The article is sourced now, but at the time of nomination it looked like this, and had barely improved since 2003. Whilst "keep a biographical article with no cited sources saying that someone is a convicted criminal, and allow for organic growth" may have passed muster for a few editors in 2003, experience (not least experience of the false accusations of crimes that people have tried to slip into Wikipedia) has, or at least should have, taught even those editors that that is a wholly unacceptable approach. User:Freakofnurture has done a good job; but it is quite proper, and indeed is policy, that articles making such claims without such work done on them, without any cited sources, are not acceptable here, and quite proper for such content to be immediately removed until such sources are located and cited. Uncle G 11:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- So how about looking for sources and seeking to improve the article before nominating it for deletion? Nominators usually look up the subject of an article and, failing to find sources, THEN nominate for deletion. This is not an obscure case and checking the facts of the matter not a difficult task. Even the original article stated that he had been found guilty of this particular crime, these weren't simply hearsay allegations. The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around. Nick mallory 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. The article had been in existence since 2003-12-16. That's a lot longer than "an hour and twenty minutes". And I once again suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. We don't keep wholly unsourced controversial biographical material around pending someone "checking the facts of the matter". We remove it until sources are provided that support it. Please read the policy. Uncle G 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. Please read my post. "The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around" - e.g. The original AfD discussion was up for one hour and twenty minutes before it was closed. In a comment below you say "Let the discussion run its full course". That's all I'm saying too. Nick mallory 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the most obvious meaning of "The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around.". Uncle G 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. Please read my post. "The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around" - e.g. The original AfD discussion was up for one hour and twenty minutes before it was closed. In a comment below you say "Let the discussion run its full course". That's all I'm saying too. Nick mallory 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. The article had been in existence since 2003-12-16. That's a lot longer than "an hour and twenty minutes". And I once again suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. We don't keep wholly unsourced controversial biographical material around pending someone "checking the facts of the matter". We remove it until sources are provided that support it. Please read the policy. Uncle G 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- So how about looking for sources and seeking to improve the article before nominating it for deletion? Nominators usually look up the subject of an article and, failing to find sources, THEN nominate for deletion. This is not an obscure case and checking the facts of the matter not a difficult task. Even the original article stated that he had been found guilty of this particular crime, these weren't simply hearsay allegations. The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around. Nick mallory 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Notability was not a factor in the speedy deletion decision, as has already been explained twice: once above and once in the deletion summary. The article is sourced now, but at the time of nomination it looked like this, and had barely improved since 2003. Whilst "keep a biographical article with no cited sources saying that someone is a convicted criminal, and allow for organic growth" may have passed muster for a few editors in 2003, experience (not least experience of the false accusations of crimes that people have tried to slip into Wikipedia) has, or at least should have, taught even those editors that that is a wholly unacceptable approach. User:Freakofnurture has done a good job; but it is quite proper, and indeed is policy, that articles making such claims without such work done on them, without any cited sources, are not acceptable here, and quite proper for such content to be immediately removed until such sources are located and cited. Uncle G 11:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It appears to be properly sourced now. Stammer 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Current version is appropriate. Newyorkbrad 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I suppose my "vote" doesn't count here, but I encourage everybody, before commenting, to closely inspect the degree to which I improved the article [1]. I've got more sources in the fridge if the current level of referencing is not adequate. So I accomplished more on this article in four hours than others did in four years. If I can do that, surely a more talented editor could make it a featured article with a couple months of steady effort. As ironic as it sounds to call Doc Glasgow a process wonk, that's exactly what he seems to be doing right now, whether he realizes it or not. —freak(talk) 17:13, May. 21, 2007 (UTC)
- Xe is only insofar as xe is insisting that a full AFD discussion be held, even though the only reason that this article came here in the first place was that it was erroneously rejected from speedy deletion by DakotaKahn (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) without dealing with the policy violation. But don't complain about that. Let the discussion run its full course and enjoy the consequent praise that you receive for fixing the article. Stop being in a rush to close the discussion because it is "process-wonkery". Relax and count how many "Keep after rewrite by Freakofnurture"s you get, instead. ☺ Uncle G 18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for improving the article Freakofnurture. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Nick mallory 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep for sources presented about this person and defer any issues about proper responses to BLP concerns to any sustained discussion on the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Much better article than before. --Whstchy 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep vastly improved and I'm prone to supporting articles where an active editor is willing to work on it to meet standards.Balloonman 21:59, 21 May 2007 (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.
