Talk:Mohammed Ali al-Ahwal

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Yemen High‑importance

	Yemen portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability of subject

The subject may be assumed notable given the huge importance to Yemen of the relationship with Saudi Arabia, which shares a long border and employs hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. The Yemeni ambassador to Saudi Arabia and his family must be high up in the Yemeni power structure. A quick web search in English shows various references to his (routine) diplomatic activities, and many to his decision to resign. Presumably there are more sources in Arabic. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a heavy dose of conjecture. If there is enough in depth coverage from reliable sources for him to pass WP:BASIC or meet some other criteria in WP:BIO then that would settle things. Right now, I'm not seeing that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may nominate the article at AfD. Before doing so you may want to check these search results. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't read Arabic. However if you have a translation and the links provide non-trivial coverage of the subject from multiple RS sources then I think we would be good to go. But again we don't operate on conjecture. While BEFORE is a good essay, policy clearly places the WP:BURDEN for verifiability and providing clear evidence of WP:N with the editors who create an article or make any major edits to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's not much on him perhaps a redirect to an article on List of Yemeni diplomats or some mention in Yemeni-Saudi Arabian relations would be better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty on him, as the search results show. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do those search results show? Do they constitute in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources? You may well be right. But so far all you have produced are links to Arabic language websites. Again, I am waiting for someone to give me a synopsis based on a translation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem Are you going to nom for deletion then or not, your prod has been removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld At the moment I am holding off in the hopes of getting a better grip on the possible foreign language sources. There is nothing here that screams CSD so I don't think we are in any need of rushing. But if some kind of verifiable evidence of N is not found in due course then I will probably just redirect the article per your suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs expansion but I don't know why you would assume that an ambaassador representing a country like Saudi Arabia for Yemen would not meet general content requirements. If you really examine their relations I'd say it is is very likely he was a pretty important figure in the middle east.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect makes no sense for someone who is so obviously notable. I would immediately revert it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld I am assuming nothing, which is what I have been attempting to point out is the correct approach here. I am looking for verifiable evidence. NPOL does not help as it states that ambassadors are not presumptively notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2 Yet again you are making assertions of fact that are not currently supported with evidence. I see nothing obvious here at all other than your stubborn resistance to policy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the bottom line as I see it. We need to get the sources linked by Aymatth2 translated. Until we have a translation we have no real evidence of notability. Perhaps someone on one of the Wikipedia projects can help? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a warped idea of notability Ad Orientem. An ambassador to a nation in the 21st century, presumably for a good number of years should immediately pass notability guidelines regardless if the article is short or not. And you are assuming it's not notable because the article is short. You prodded it for deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing my position solely on policy and guidelines. The length of an article has nothing to do with anything. I Proded the article because I could not find in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. If you can point to any guidelines or policy that supports presumptive notability here, I will happily withdraw my reservations. For the record, I suspect this guy is notable. But Wikipedia does not operate on suspicion or conjecture. Seriously, I feel like I am beating my head on a brick wall here trying to explain pretty elementary guidelines to two experienced editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I dropped a line on WP:ISLAM asking for some help with a translation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: What has this got to do with Islam? If a cursory online search shows many in-depth reliable independent sources, as in this case, it is a waste of everyone's time to propose deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat hopeful that there is someone on the project who has some command of Arabic and who can lend a hand with translation. Why do you keep claiming that these Arabic links establish notability when you don't know what they are or what they say? This conversation is incredibly frustrating. What part of in depth coverage from multiple verifiable and reliable sources do you not get? Please do not tell me again that this subject is notable or that the sources prove notability until you you can tell me what they are and what they say. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Are you saying you could not make sense of the search results, but proposed deletion anyway? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Prod was posted and removed before you posted the Arabic links as you should well know. I have deliberately refrained from taking any further steps towards deletion, for now, in the hopes of getting a clearer picture of what sources are available in the Arabic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched for the name in Arabic. Did you not even take that elementary step before proposing deletion? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. I can't read Arabic and would be utterly unable to make any judgement about what came up in a search. I could not even tell if I had misspelled a name or if the name was as common as "Smith" is in English. I went as far as my linguistic skills permit. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I have an obligation to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Providing evidence of notability is the BURDEN of the article's creator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: WP:Burden says an editor should provide citations to reliable sources to support content in an article, as has been done here. Unsourced content may be removed. It says nothing about proving notability. WP:Before gives guidelines for the deletion process. If the concern is lack of notability, do a quick search for sources. I advise you to read these guidelines carefully and make sure you fully understand them before proposing any other articles for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]