Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulrahman Mohammad Mohammad Yazji

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. RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Mohammad Mohammad Yazji

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Several failed speedies, and I anticipate this wouldn't make it through PROD, so bringing it here for discussion. I am unable to find evidence that Yazji is notable for what put him on the Saudis' list, and of course the list itself does not confer notability. We could redirect to the list, but if he's not notable, that doesn't seem helpful for the user. I don't read Arabic, which is an issue, but without suitable information to expand this, this isn't helping the reader. Star Mississippi 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: to my mind, a redirect is better than a redlink regardless of whether the subject is notable. Can you clarify/expand on why you disagree with redirection? VQuakr (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @VQuakr: I am unable to find reliable source coverage so I would think it's a BLP issue, among other challenges? There are a lot of mirrors and unreliable sources, and we really need an Arabic speaker. If we can solve to those, a redirect might not be a bad option. Star Mississippi 16:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so essentially saying that without sigcov we are in violation of WP:BLPCRIME? VQuakr (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that way to me, but that's more opinion than official guideline. Also we have no indication of why he's on that list. Without that, what does noting that he was (still is? Also unclear) on the list tell the reader. Star Mississippi 18:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourcing meeting WP:BASIC can be found in non-English references. I agree per the discussion above that the existing list source isn't adequate to keep a redirect to an article with "terrorist" in the title, per WP:BLPCRIME. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty egregious BLPCRIME violation. Under no circumstances should there ever be a one-sentence, one-source article describing a living person as a terrorist (even with in-text attribution), even if that person has been convicted, let alone if they haven't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (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.