Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saami Shaibani

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. In addition to the notability and BLP concerns raised, the article is an incredible exercise in soapboxing, going into great detail with respect to this person's authority as a trial expert, and if it were kept, it would likely continue to be misused for that purpose. Sandstein 17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saami Shaibani

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Already deleted as speedy (A7). Article goes to great lengths and great detail to promote its subject, but very little evidence offered to back up the claims, and little claim as to why he is notable in the first place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's masses of evidence in the article, including copies of what I can only assume are confidential correspondence. However, the article focuses solely on the negative aspects of this person, which makes it a violation of WP:BLP and a possible G10 speedy delete candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and really weird article too. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is important information on the murder trial of Michael Iver Peterson and David Aesoph. All court documents are public domain. The scans of the Oxford degrees are self-made scans and permission has been granted by email by Dr. Shaibani. This is very important information on the case of Dr. Shaibani. Dr. Saami Shaibani was accused of perjury during the trial of Michael Iver Peterson. It was later discovered that Temple University, in fact, did appointed Dr. Saami Shaibani a Clinical Associate Professor in the Physics Department in 1995. There is more than enough evidence in this article to support its claims. This article does not attack Dr. Shaibani, it simply posts facts and official documents relating to his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfulcher (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Jvfulcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and WP:SALT per nominator we are not a host for personal correspondences!!! JBsupreme (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is in no way, personal correspondence. Dr. Shaibani is front page local news in Lynchburg, VA; he is notable due to his involvement in the televised Michael Peterson murder trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.251.76 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — 74.4.251.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See WP:BLP1E. Saami Shaibani may warrant a mention in the Michael Peterson (author) article where relevant to the murder trial, but nothing more. Irrespective of where Saami Shaibani is mentioned, any discussion of his Oxford credentials must adhere to Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view. This mean that if any sources end up in the article that mentions stuff you'd rather wasn't said about him, you can't stop it going in. See WP:LUC. Don't say I didn't warn you. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability under either WP:BIO or WP:PROF here, and too many WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only point of notability is a one event and should only be included in the Peterson article. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls under WP:1E, as already noted by others.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have began to edit to reference to include page/line numbers to clearly show that this information is verifiable from public court records in SD and NC. With the Michael Peterson and David Aesoph murder trials, this is notable on two accounts. Both murder trials were/are very notable, is this getting closer? Also edited to delete Oxford degrees, and be a neutral point of view, most everything in this article is from the David Aesoph habeas appeal and Michael Peterson trial. --jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Note The above comment is the second keep !vote in this AfD by User:jvfulcher. Nsk92 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update jvfulcher has been discussing the matter on the talk page, and it appears Saami Shaibani has been an expert witness in a lot of murder trials apart from the two mentioned here, so that may qualify for notability provided this is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. I'm keeping my vote as delete at the moment because I think it would be better to scrap this article and start again from scratch, but with the caveat that if the article is re-created in a form that addresses the notability and neutrality concerns, it can stay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I still think that, even if a passable notability case is established, the current page must be deleted first. It is one giant unsalvageable WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE violation. I would not even be comfortable with the page being blanked since its content would still be availble in the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BLP. There is nothing about the article that suggests any possible notability beyond one event. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update This article has gone through a massive change, almost every sentence in the article is referenced from major news outlets (USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and the AP) or Public Domain court documents. The court documents can be obtained by anyone from the Clerk of Court in Hyde County, SD or the Clerk of Court in Durham County, NC. All the documents are public domain, and not confidential. I also have listed the many papers, articles, and patent by Dr. Saami Shaibani. Currently I have 6 criminal murder trials that he has been an expert witness in, some of these trials are being appealed, so they are very notable, high-profile trials. I also changed the article to only present facts from news and court documents, like I said, almost all sentences are referenced. I believe this is a notable, NPOV, and verifible article. Let me know if something needs to be updated. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The USA Today article does now suggest that Saami Shaibani does have some notability outside of a single murder trial. However, if the USA Today article[1] is anything to go by, I must advise that once the article is written to accurately reflect all of the third-party sources, it may well end up portraying him in a far less positive light than you hoped for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the most recent event, The David Aesoph Appeal, paints the most recent picture. With that in mind, the press has not done their research on this. The documents I presented exist in the public domain and no news outlet has found this information. The only people to see the documents were people involved in the Aesoph Appeal in Hyde County. All of the third-party sources list two major points: Perjury in the Peterson trial (or padded credentials) and the Plude and O'Brien retrial and appeal, which I just added to the Plude/O'Brien trial section with a reference. There is no reason to relist those points multiple times. The major information is all listed in the article, I didn't include quotes from the AP reporter, Ryan Foley. I only included that there was a trial, Dr. Saami Shaibani was involved, and if there is a retrial or appeal now. The article points out the two valid overall points: 2003 accused of perjury, then in 2006 found to be credible.

With all that said, I know there is always a risk on Wikipedia. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Update Another edit, removed all sentences that are not verified in the court documents, testimonies, or quotes/facts from the actual murder trials. No reporter or press quotes. No editorial spin, just coping and pasting sentences from the courts. All the positives and negatives are included, only listed once each. Was that a vote for keep Chris? Let me know if I have missed something and I will fix it. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The purpose of this article appears to be supporting the subject's credibility as an expert witness. This appears to be soapboxing and violating the neutral point of view. It also is lacking in context by failing to clearly describe the circumstances of his credibility being called into question in the first place. If this ever were to be an article of decent quality, it would look very different from how it looks now. We would probably be better off deleting this and letting the article be started over once the subject's notability becomes more apparent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Another edit to address Metropolitan90's concerns, moved the highest profile trial (Peterson) to number one position in article. I don't think the article supports one claim more than another now, whether Shaibani is found credible or not. Also added context to describe the circumstances of his credibility being called into question during the Peterson trial. Also included references to those said circumstances. A google search returns 773 hits on "saami shaibani" (in quotes), over 9,000 hits on saami shaibani (no quotes). Hits are mostly about Peterson, O'Brien, Plude, and Aesoph trials. I think that notability is there. Should the large list of papers be scaled down? I can understand that point. I don't understand how this is soapboxing. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am trying to understand the notability concerns. From looking at other Wiki articles, such as John H. Smith (mathematician), I think Shaibani is much more notable and has more publications. If the John H. Smith (mathematician) article is classified as WP:PROF, then I should add "formerly of Virginia Tech". His position at Virginia Tech was never questioned in court as well. Suggestions appreciated. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't have time to check this in detail right now, but the fact that an article exists on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prove the subject is notable - it merely means that no-one has successfully nominated the article for deletion yet. However, the issue of notability doesn't matter now. I think there's little doubt that Saami Shaibani qualifies as notable (just not necessarily the thing he'd like to be notable for). The issue now is whether this article is appropriate coverage in Wikipedia, particularly Neutral Point of View. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article reads neutral.74.4.251.76 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, with some real reluctance, because this article is going to be a pain. jvfulcher, you're going to have to accept that this article is about to undergo some drastic changes; other editors here will not allow it to remain in its current state. To prepare yourself for what is about to happen, I strongly suggest you read the following: WP:OWN, WP:NOR, WP:V, and for good measure (especially in relation to formatting references) WP:MOS. In any event, I agree with Chris Neville-Smith that it is now clear he is notable by the usual standard (though certainly not by WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was expecting that it would need some help. I would encourage you to read (or skim) the 26 page, Aesoph appeal. This is the most recent court document available on Shaibani. At least the article is getting closer and a keep vote. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 27 November 2008 (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.