Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Al-Bazi

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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Al-Bazi[edit]

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

My searches found nothing here, here, here and here to suggest better and independent notability and there's also no good move target (orphan); at best this would be best mentioned elsewhere as part of another article you. This is interesting and he may be locally notable but I'm not seeing wholly time-worthy improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly by A7, becasuse there is no indication of importance by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I wanted to notify you the article has now changed. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I sourced the article. More could be done, but editors should look at sources now in the article before commenting. Reasons given by Nom, and DGG's suggestion of A7 no longer apply and DG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on source verification, does not meet GNG because of WP:NOTINHERITED. This article is being used as a central dump point for tangentially connected items and events related to the article subject, but the subject himself is not notable because of the related coverage. The two Monitor sources only give trivial mention to al-Bazi for quotes and brief overview; there's no real bio in either case, and the actual "depth of coverage" is on his school (in the Christian Science Monitor case), and on education in a refugee camp he is managing (in the Al-Monitor). Kember's book is about Kember (per Amazon), not al-Bazi (unclear from title alone), and is used to mention the church's demographics, not explicitly al-Bazi - possible synthesis there. Lastly, the BBC World Service is a radio program, of which the first eight minutes of the overall hour is given over to al-Bazi's kidnapping, which occurred in 2006, nowhere close to the church coverage in 2010 or the BBC coverage in 2015. In that instance, it's maybe BLP1E for the kidnapping (though one news report isn't depth of coverage either). MSJapan (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update Previous comment obsolete because article is now completely rewritten and far better sourced. Father Douglas makes a rather compelling story. Anybody want to help me improve it and maybe nominate it for DKY. To show how collaborative etiting at AFD can improve Wikipedia in wonderful ways?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again to evaluate the rewrite Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No change from previous vote - there are now 13 sources. The first source is the aforementioned radio program, most of which is about the church. 2 and 8 are the aforementioned Monitors. 3 is the Catholic Review, where the ransom claim is, but al-Bazi gets less mention than the other guy. 4 is still Kember. 5 is about the kidnapping, 6 through 10 are really about "Christians in the Middle East." 11 is in Italian, but they spoke to Bashar Warda about the camp, and al-Bazi isn't mentioned - it's also short. 12 is also very short. 13 isn't really all that much more informative than 3 Most of the coverage is about the camp/center that he happens to run. I'm also going to state that I think E.M.Gregory is sourcing everything from this BBC program and then adding sources that have al-Bazi mentioned in it to try to show coverage when those claims do not appear in those sources. Still not notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A sad case. I had not wanted to drag this into the discussion, but User:MSJapan has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for weeks. He has repeatedly stated a desire to drive me off Wikipedia. My suspicion that there may be mental health issues involved has led me to try and ignore him, individuals with mental stability issues often cease their attacks if ignored. It really is sad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this on-topic E.M.Gregory. Thanks! samtar^{(leave me a message)} 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reading the sources will see that MSJapan's assertions are unsupported.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, funny how that happens when you remove the failed verification tags. How about this discussion, where you did not refute with proof a single removal I made? MSJapan (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks fine now, BBC and Christian Science Monitor sources meet notability, other references indicate there is enough information available to create and interesting article. 009o9 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Except the sources aren't "fine" which is why I went through them all. Nothing has changed in the sourcing from my previous comment other than E.M.Gregory removed all the failed verification tags and cited something else to a source in which it does not appear. The sourcing problems still exist. By the way, the whole reason I verify sources is because AfD voters look at source titled and figure they're OK because the publication is OK. The problem here is that the source does not say what the source is claimed to say. MSJapan (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still think it should be deleted, as NOT NEWS. It's ca relatively minor incident in the long series of ISIs-related horrors. There is no reason to think it will become part of the historical record in any significant way. Do we possibly have a group article to merge or rexdirect to? DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Well, honestly, it's hard to say; the 2006 kidnapping of the article subject I think should be Taliban, not ISIS, based on timeframe, and it's never specified as to who did it. The refugee camp stuff is not related to the kidnapping, and refers to Christians as refugees, but (as best as the sources for this article say) not specifically to who or what caused them to be there. So I think we have a SYNTH problem if we try to put it anywhere without proof of such, and nowhere we can put everything. To be fair, though, I'm concerned myself with sources already here, and haven't looked for other sources which might offer some corroboration, although you'd think at least one out of 13 (at last count) would. MSJapan (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Here [1] is a simple news google search on : Douglas al Bazi Irbil. Many, many articles describing his refugee work, especially in the Polish, Spanish and Italian press. DWhether he knows more languages, or gives a better interview, or runs a better refugee camp than others who have set up refugee camps in Iraqi Kurdistan I do not know. But he has clearly become something of a public figure. Perhaps journalists like the idea of a man kidnapped and beaten by Islamists in 2006, now running a refugee camp for people fleeing ISIS-style Islamism in Iraq. Note that i did not create this article. I found it at AFD and did as I regularly do , i.e., I checked the Nom's assertion that "My searches found nothing." And when my searches instantly found a lot, I sourced the article. To me, this is a no-brainer: when a guy has sources like this, his page is a keeper. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion] for the validity of "your sources" - Googling for a name hit and then pasting random titles isn't sourcing when the information isn't in there. MSJapan (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw that accusation, you have made it repeatedly. In fact, any editor who takes the time to review my edits will see that I added new sources when I added points of information found in those edits, changing the article as I went along. And, sometimes, adding a second or third source, when I happened to find a second or third source for a particular aspect of his career. I had never heard of Al Bazi before I happened on this AFD. OF COURSE I searched for information on him. That's what I do at AFD. In this case, I found so much, that over the course of a week or so, I went back and improved the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw an accusation based firmly on what the sources say, and to which you were unable to respond when asked other than to make some vague assertion of "I had no idea". You did not add "sources", you added "titles you found on Google" because if you had read the sources, you would have seen (as I did) that the material cited to those sources did not appear therein. What you actually did was listen to the BBC interview, write it out, and WP:COATRACK that information with other places where al-Bazi's name appeared as a search result. There's no other other possibility, as details you cited to sources simply weren't in those sources, but they were in the BBC interview. Don't attack me personally on my due diligence because you failed to do yours. Also, hard ot AGF on "expanding sources" when editors had to fix all your work before you gave in and did so. MSJapan (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the AFD of an article I did not create, I sought additional information about AlBazi, addit it with sources, and also added multiple sources to aspects of his career. You, on the other hand, !voted to delete the article, then deleted reliable sources supporting notability, and made inaccurate statements (i.e. - actually went to an administrators personal talk page to assert that the $170,000 ransom was not supported by sources. Although it was and is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are welcome to do so. I assume that editors act here in good faith, that several editors have !Voted keep because they have read the sources, as I did, and found that the coverage of Al Bazi in them is extensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after updating with better sources. Good work--BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good lad. Well sourced. Settleman (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2015 (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.