Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ghaleb Kadhim

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ghaleb Kadhim

[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)

I don't know how but my original nom managed to get eaten by the server. This is a completely exaggerated article and possibly fabricated. There are no sources in English or Arabic (or any other language) about this person to confirm any of the claims of notability. The existing sources are self published (ie. Press releases, etc...) and there is no other coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources, there are no press reports about this person, there are no sources for the tournaments he did, there is an exaggeration and falsification - Fareeq Almayoofee (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fake information without sources - Ahmed alnasre (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreliable sources, there are no sources talking about something prominent to the personality. Al-Dandoon (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as the sources appear to be unreliable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the amount of !votes that have been cast from what could possibly be sock/meatpuppets, I have decided that I will withdraw my vote. I don't have a strong opinion on what happens here, and I don't want to become part of a campaign for deletion, even if the sources are not verifiable and the article will likely be deleted. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utopes I can assure you from my end there's been no campaigning, I don't know who the other accounts are but I'd encourage you to take into account my nomination and consider the arguments I presented as opposed to whatever these sock puppets hope to accomplish. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I don't disagree with the nomination, and I don't doubt your good intentions. The content is not verifiable and written with a clear POV. However, I just am not going to cast my !vote because I do not know whether there is a takedown campaign from other SPAs that are participating here. The article will likely be deleted due to overwhelming consensus, and rightly so based on the current state of the article. I just am not going to join in on the WP:SNOW. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fake information without sources - Osama Baqir (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Osama Baqir (talk)[reply]
Note What I see is that most of the editors putting delete votes have very few edits in their accounts. Olisaiuer (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be very disruptive, and self-defeating, when we get such a bunch of sock/meatpuppets turning up, even if we agree with their bolded opinion, because it puts other people off from evaluating the subject properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 11:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles should not be paid for nor solicited by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am an editor in Arabic Wikipedia - Fareeq Almayoofee (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I don't read Arabic, but it is clear from the nomination statement that you do, so could you please give those of us who are more ignorant an analysis of the Arabic sources in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Arabic but I consulted with a native ar editor and used google translate. It's effectively an unverified press release in both of the two sources. It's the equivalent of publishing something on Yahoo's press service, i'm also ignoring the patently unreliable sources which are effectively blogs that look like a news outlet. (I did however, search the name in Persian/Farsi, Arabic and English and came to the same result.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @علاء: who I consulted with. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Praxidicae usually consults me before any RfD related to Arabic topics. Also, Arabic Wikipedia appreciate her work a lot of times. About this articles, sources as follow:

1/2/3 = Ahmed Ghaleb youTube channel
10 = Ahmed Ghaleb Instagram account
5/6/7/8/9 = unreliable website (+ copy/paste from each others)
4 = Website include any human rights violations, and you can't trust it that much, as any one can make a report.

So, Delete as non-notable paid article --Alaa :)..! 17:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, both of you. It confirms the impression that I got from using Google Translate, but I know that it's difficult to judge sources when I don't understand them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming this protester exists and was kidnapped and released unharmed, he's not notable in any way and one incident does not make him notable. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (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.