Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim al-Marashi

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep the article but delete the original versions from the database since they are copyvios. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahim al-Marashi

down the road this guy might very well be notable, but for now delete Babajobu 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. Friday 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless a list of his published work appears and can be verified.Hamster Sandwich 04:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is a notable figure in the context of the Dodgy Dossier. That makes him a minor somebody, but we have articles on less notable people. I'm going to add a prominent reference to his role in the scandal. --Diderot 09:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The originally posted text was a copyvio from his homepage. I've modified the text enough to no longer be a copyvio, but a round of delete and restore is recommended if the consensus is to not delete, in order to purge the history of copyright violations. --Diderot 10:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from original nominator...I'm no longer as confident that this should be deleted. When I VfD'd it the article did not state that this guy was the source for the Dodgy Dossier. He's certainly well known as "the PhD guy whose material was cribbed by the Blair administration", if not as nearly as well known by his own name. I don't know, I could really go either way on it now. Babajobu 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep given the new information. Pburka 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but delete the edit history with the copyvio material in it. Sooner rather than later before other people start editing it. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the wub "?/!" 15:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and delete copyvio edit history if possible. Capitalistroadster 16:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Considering his importance in the Dodgy Dossier he should definately remain. His history is essential to an understanding of 'why the dossier was dodgy'.24.215.252.158 17:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability established. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep some have notability thrust upon them, any possible copyvios are a separate issue. PatGallacher 00:49, 2005 July 24 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.