Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001)

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 delete. The "keep" opinions are unconvincing because they do not address the sourcing requirement of WP:BIO (all we have are primary US government sources of obscure provenance) and the WP:BLP problems inherent in listing an allegedly living person as a terrorist leader solely on the basis of such sources. Sandstein 07:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable person. If the best thing we can say about someone is that American intelligence are sure they exist then we don't have enough material for an article, and it fails WP:BIO at the first hurdle. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no credible sources say this person even exists. The only information we have comes from someone detained in Guantanamo Bay not a real reliable source. --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A point of clarification -- this comment is based on a misunderstanding of what the article says. The article, and the underlying references, do not say that the information the American intelligence establishment has on Abdul Salam was based on Guantanamo interrogations. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I did misunderstand the article. I am striking my comment for now. At this point after re-reading the article again, I am not even sure what the article is saying. The first line is not even a complete sentence and still trying to figure out the rest of the article. --A new name 2008 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It seems to me that this nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the wikipedia's policy on verifiability. The nomination asserts that we don't even know whether Abdul Salam exists. Well, the very first sentence of WP:VER says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". Basing a nomination for deletion on the question whether we know whether Abdul Salam really exists lapses from WP:VER, because, without regard to whether we know he really exists, the American intelligence asserts he exists. It is verifiable. I suggest there is nothing exceptional about having articles on topics that may not exist. We cover theoretical sub-atomic particles, which may or may not exist. We cover the gods and supernatural beings from across the religious spectrum. We cover the 20th hijacker -- an individual who may not have existed. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that according to American intelligence, we do know he exists, but that's the most we know. There is no misunderstanding going on here other than your misunderstanding of what I wrote. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nomination asserts that Abdul Salam was "not notable". He is described as a deputy to Abdul Hadi Al Iraqi -- number three in Al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. That is an important position. We may not know as much about him as we would like. But, I suggest this is not a good reason to delete an article we have good, verifiable references for. I have addressed this in more detail here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Further "Abdul Salam" is a very common name in the Muslim world. Abdul Salam Rocketti and Abdul Salam Zaeff are two other senior figures who were Taliban leaders. Without having a separate article on Abdul Salam the Al Qaeda leader, it would be easy to mistake him for one of the other Abdul Salam who American intelligence were interested in. In addition Guantanamo held half a dozen other individuals who might have their name shortened to Abdul Salam. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article needs a good spit and polish, more info would be nice, but it does seem to meet WP:V, albeit barely. WP:NOTABILITY, on the other hand, is also a factor here and this article asserts no notability whatsoever. I am open to revisiting my delete comment, but in the absence of any proof that he's done something notable I feel we would be better off without him here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as a military leader of internationally known stature. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete - I went back through and reviewed this article again, the supporting documentation and the notability guidelines. I also searched for addition sources to verify the information in the article. The current sourcing for this article is two primary sources. (I could not retrieve the first one for some reason, but will assume that the article accurately relates what the document says.) As Geo Swan says above "Abdul Salam" is a very common name in the Muslim world and there is no verifiable connection that these two documents are talking about the same person. They could be or it could be two different people. I found zero reliable secondary sources that discuss this person in passing or in depth. According to the notability guideline for people the basic criteria is that a person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. We do not have that in this article. All we have are primary sources that mention this common name in passing. Again from the notability guideline for people the basic criteria goes on to say, primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. At this point we have nothing to establish notability according to wikipedia guidelines. --A new name 2008 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable irregular military/terrorist leader. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.