Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Hussain

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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hussain

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

Insignificant person. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-1. If you want to nominate my article for deletion you are going to have to give a better explanation than two words. I've a good mind to just scrub the banner. 2. He is clearly not an insignificant person, he has received tons of coverage in the media. It's hardly in dispute that he is in fact notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources, including the UN. Ethanlu121, please read WP:GNG before submitting an AfD. Jergling (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't take much searching to determine that the subject is notable. There appears to be sufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The nomination does not appear to comply with WP:BEFORE.
That having been said, the article is woefully short on actual references to back "facts" that are clearly derogatory. I've deleted one especially salacious sentence that cites no source and have requested a cite for another. This article needs a lot of work.
Dave8899: Per WP:OWN, it is not your article. And it's good that you did not "just scrub the banner." We have to assume that the nomination was made in good faith. The page, in its current state, is a swamp of potential WP:BLP issues. Just because the subject appears to be notable, that does not justify the appearance of unsourced derogatory information. It needs serious attention. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4450320.ece

Times is a reliable source that corroborates the Mail, information is not derogatory/salaciousDave8899 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, editors are under no obligation to look for sources re the suggested WP:BEFORE (although it is considered to be good form to do so:)} prior to nominating an article, rather WP:BURDEN prevails so editors may remove any unsourced statements, this is especially important withWP:BLP. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2016 (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.