Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Al-Taher

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. Star Mississippi 17:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Al-Taher

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ibrahim Al-Taher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. 3 of the 5 sources are still databases. I checked this source, it's merely a one line mention of علوي أحمد الطاهري and does not meet SIGCOV. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on WP:NEXIST, with a possibility for procedural keep. Context for procedural keep: Over 80 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors from non-English-speaking countries) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, all of which aren't in English and most of which are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national newspaper archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination, but otherwise these need to be more spread out. Having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures notoriously difficult to research sets up an insurmountable task.
NEXIST rationale: Qatari newspapers from the 1980s haven't been found yet, we would expect coverage because Al-Taher was the only Qatari athlete to qualify for the Olympic marathon, and his 2:23:12 time was the best of all Qatari athletes.
The simple fact is that Ibrahim Al-Taher is no less notable than (for example) Chae Hong-nak or Adalberto García. The only difference is the online availability of newspaper coverage from the region at the time. Just because sources aren't on the Internet doesn't mean the article should be deleted, per WP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor stated "NEXIST does not exempt subjects from the requirement that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". LibStar (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which editor stated that? The evidence that a source has received SIGCOV can in rare cases be his achievements, which is the rationale I'm using here. --Habst (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farouk Ahmed Sayed. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that and using NEXIST here doesn't contradict that view – the achievements of the subject are bother verified by WP:RS and objective, and they serve as evidence that significant coverage exists. --Habst (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin said "a nomination cannot be procedurally closed simply because the nominator didn't check for sources in a language with which they are unfamiliar. Contrarily, WP:NEXIST clearly tells us, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." LibStar (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, which admin said that? It's difficult to respond to quotes when the context isn't known. I don't even necessarily disagree with the quote – the keyword being "seldom", and in some cases NEXIST can be persuasive. --Habst (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The context is you and your NEXIST arguments. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismael Mahmoud Ghassab. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that contradicts the NEXIST argument. I agree it can only be used in certain cases, but even the admin says that it can be persuasive in some cases. My argument is that this is one of those cases. --Habst (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with your entire passage of thought, and I would not be against suggested LibStar should slow down as their excessive PRODs and AfDs can be considered disruptive. Procedural keep, and in this instance the achievements would suggest N exists, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep does not apply here. This AfD has been open since 27 February so plenty of time to find sources. Please state actual sources. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finding the sources might take years, not days or weeks. See here for an example of a successful find. Then consider that the vast majority of regional newspapers from Al-Taher's era aren't digitized, despite ongoing efforts. --Habst (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:46, 7 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ibrahim_Al-Taher&oldid=1280444213"