Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyad Alrababah

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. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyad Alrababah

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

WP:BLP1E concerns; there are no references in the article, but [1] summarizes the situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP; an unsourced article on a living person who is also a low-profile individual, not charged in connection with terrorism. There may be a notable topic here somewhere -- see for example Homeland Insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American Experience After 9/11 -- but the article would need to fundamentally rewritten and sourced. The notability is marginal at best, so perhaps such article would never get written. So delete per nuke and pave. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes close to amounting to a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone held as a witness to even major crimes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a tough one. Unfortunately it has a source so BLPPROD is not an option, even though the source is inappropriate. I agree it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. Re User:Johnpacklambert This doesn't really happen for "minor" crimes, but use of the material witness warrant to indefinitely detain people after 9/11 was a huge deal. There was a Supreme Court case about it. This was discussed in one of the major amici briefs [2]. Alrababah is also mentioned in enough WP:RS (books from academic publishers, and news stories [3]) as one of those detained that it passes WP:BLP1E. But the article needs to be rewritten based on secondary sources, and it might be better to redirect to the al Kidd case. My only concern is that case articles end up becoming long enough that spinouts are sometimes needed for background topics.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:29, 5 February 2018 (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.