Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian (2nd nomination)

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. On the issue of attribution raised by Lankveil, I have moved the page to Talk:Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial/Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian to preserve the history SpinningSpark 14:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian

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

Massive undue weight on a single minor incident, peppered with poor sources and polemic attacks. Article was merged and redirected 6 months ago by User:Thargor Orlando but the merge has been unilaterally undone by the page creator, therefore this needs to go to AfD and deleted outright. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a merge is appropriate here, and most (if not all) of the relevant information is already in Sami_Al-Arian_indictments_and_trial#Rashad_Hussein_comments. Delete also makes sense, as the commentary isn't really noteworthy outside of the indictments/trial article, but merge is my first option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject was discussed by the Council on Foreign Relations. We may dislike/disagree with the subject, but this is not a reason to remove an articles page. Also, the merge was never discussed. The page was tagged, no discussion occurred, and the tagger merged the page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with a merger proposal for four months and not a single editor objected. The page had been merged for more than 6 months without objection. As Thargor notes, the relevant information is in the appropriate article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Council on Foreign Relations stated that, "The controversy led to a larger question of whether the United States should engage the Organization of Islamic Conference diplomatically." [1] Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has stated in an edit summary that the "article is about conservative response" - I believe that this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. We don't write articles about partisan responses, be they liberal or conservative. The article creator also stated "this is not a BLP" which indicates a misapprehension of the policy, which requires that anything stated about a living person anywhere must be solidly sourced and that personal blogs, political interest group press releases and polemic fringe organizations are not suitable, particularly for accusations as charged as the ones in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources like Politico have well documented. See [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk),

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This may not make for a fun article, but the sources are sound: Politico, Fox News, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Washington Post, Asharq Al-Awsat, Foreign Policy Magazine, Rediff, Asia Times, Open Salon, Mediaite, Saudi Gazette, The Washington Examiner, Forbes Magazine, Algemeiner, and the New York Times. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not news and we do not need to exhaustively and breathlessly document a 5-minute news cycle event. The coverage of the incident in the merged article is sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not news -. It's a subject with much more depth. Aside from the coverage after the Hussain nomination, it has continued. It was 5 months later that the CFR made its analysis. Also, 2 years later, it was discussed in the 2013 text by Erick Stakelbeck, "The Brotherhood" - reviewed by Politico, linked here [7]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Books Over that past few years, there are books that have been written that discuss this subject. Some of these are: Andrew C. McCarthy's "The Grand Jihad," Robert Spencer's "Arab Winter Comes to America," Bill Seigel's "The Control Factor," and Joseph A. Klein's "Lethal Engagement." This is clearly beyond news, this subject has been evaluated by notables of their field of study. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with good and sound sources, this is still a tempest in a teacup; it is a classic one-news-cycle story - the outrage of the day, "all sound and fury signifying nothing" - see WP:ONEEVENT. I would not object to this being transwikied to WikiNews or more information being added to the merged article. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the above arguments, I think this article is a keep. While its name and subject matter may be less than interesting, it was a series of notable events, with international media giving it coverage. As the Council of Foreign Relations has shown, these events caused the U.S. to reconsider the existence of its ambassadorship. Also, the subject, as coverage has shown, was not simply about the actual comments. Those received coverage, and then it continued with the debate about what was said, a missing tape, media critism and support, followed by general reflections on the ambassadorship. This is way beyond one event, and the depth of coverage, and commentary, goes beyond "not news." As such, the article stands on its own. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user is the page creator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs show this to be notable. Meets wiki notability standards, as reflected in RS refs. I don't see this as excluded by any of our oneevent policies (I believe the above one points to a policy about articles about individuals), because we keep articles about one event if coverage, as here, spans a period of time and is not just for example in the paper for a week or two. Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rashad Hussain. Too oblique a topic to warrant its own article, sources or no. p bp 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having an article covering just a person's comments on one topic is inherently giving too much weight to the comments. Wikipedia is not news, and we do not need indepth article on minor comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think the article name is creating a problem here. The subject of the article is about - a series of events. As such, it should probably be renamed something more appropriate, like 2010 OIC Envoy appointment controversy. This would be more on topic. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rashad Hussain. Massively undue weight, and I'd typically go with "Delete", but if some of this content has been merged into the main article we need to keep this around to preserve the history (it may be sensible to lock the redirect to prevent unilateral recreation again though). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:12, 26 July 2014 (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.