Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhi al-Badri al-Samerai

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subhi al-Badri al-Samerai[edit]

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

This largely unsourced contribution of WP:OR fails GNG. Article is sourced to a personal blog. A check of Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR finds only one other mention of subject, in two sentences in this article on the website of ETH Zurich: [1]. Edit: An image used to accompany this article, uploaded by the article's author as "own work", has been speedily deleted as a copyright violation. [2] Chetsford (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You kindly found a second source for the article, and I have found four further Arabic sources, including a very good one from the website of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq. I think you will agree that the article now has ample sources to evidence notability. I have added three further sources for a total of 9 separate sources clearly establishing the subjects notability. Kuching7102 (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated a lot of pages you've created for deletion so I'm not going to go through this with each one, however, once again - simply finding any mention of a person somewhere on the web and slapping up a link to it in the article does not count as sourcing and notability is not established by volume of mentions. I'm not going to go through each of these one by one as a pattern is emerging that you're just shotgunning websites into an article once it's AfD'ed; for instancee, your Newsweek "source" doesn't even mention the subject of the article once. Your other "sources" - like Al-Rased - do not appear to be RS, which may be why they're not currently used on any of WP's 5.5 million articles except ones you've authored [3]. Drowning an article in websites to make it look well-referenced and to exhaust anyone trying to verify them is, at best, disruptive. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, if you nominate a page for deletion, you DO have to go through everything. That is the whole point of this process.

Now I pointed to the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq source, which is an eulogy for the subject, and establishes notability because this is a major organisation in Iraq, indeed it has its own Wikipedia page here.

Now, The newsweek article DOES mention the subject "One neighbor says al-Baghdadi was supervised by two prominent clerics (now deceased): Sheikh Subhi al-Saarai and Sheikh Adnan al-Ameen." Now I'll be generous and say you missed it because of their typo, but his name, Subhi al-Samarai, is there.

Further, the al-rased.net source is a fairly extensive history of Subhi al-Samarai.

As indeed is http://assalamu-alayka.tv/ar/detail/425 a biography of the subject

I have found the solid sourcing for this page you wanted, and instead of accepting it, you are trying your best to slander perfectly good sources

The newsweek article is actually vitally important, because in addition to the profile of the subject by the american academic, this is an English source that points out the subject taught Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. So he is the teacher of the leader of ISIS, and very influential upon him in his religious ideas actually, and he is not notable?! Of course Subhi al-Samarai is notable

Kuching7102 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've now gone through them all and your additions are not RS. The exception is a one-sentence mention in Newsweek. As Johnpacklambert notes in another one of the many AfDs of your articles active now, "The notion of notavbility is that a person is widely studied." [4]. A one-sentence mention does not rise to that level. Chetsford (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is an eulogy by the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq official website not a reliable source?

How are al-rased.net and albasrah.net, which both provide biographies of the subject, not reliable sources?

Why is http://assalamu-alayka.tv/ar/detail/425, not a reliable source, yet another biography of the subject?

These are all reliable sources covering the subject extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuching7102 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) they do not have a known process of editorial controls and gatekeeping, and, (b) they are not, themselves, referenced in other RS. You can find more information on identifying reliable sources here: WP:RELIABLE. If you need help identifying reliable sources, you can register a question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a reliable source is and there are six reliable sources covering the subject extensively given for this page and 3 trivial mentions.Kuching7102 (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a FYI, I've just nominated the photo you uploaded for this article, claiming it was your own work, for speedy deletion ([5]). Chetsford (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable figure in Iraqi Salafi movement and has received wide coverage enough to establish WP:GNG. Most sources are really to be found in Arabic in Mideast Arab channels programs. Even now the article is well referenced. Plus, any article that contain sources from Newsweek and icct.nl we can not really make generalization that the article is sourced to personal blog even if some source appears new to us. In addition, deletion of image on Commons has no relationship with this AfD discussion. It's the image that is cv not the article — Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 16 November 2017 (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.