Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen

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. There is a consensus that this individual is notable and that a standalone article is warranted. In particular, the subject fails the third condition of BLP1E. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen

[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)

POV fork of 2024 Magdeburg car attack/WP:BLP1E. No need for standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Germany. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has warranted their own article. Haskeymorrison (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. warrants own article. i dont see any reason why it should be deleted. Ashbandicooter (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article. That the article is POV, as you wrote, is a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person is famous enough even with the article on Magdeburg attacks Athoremmes (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person has received a lot of attention from the media and easily meets the notability standards. Theofunny (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the persons controversial views, ideology, and his role in the Attack make him notable enough for a standalone page. Deleting it would lose important context about his actions and background. Instead, we should focus on improving the article. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not just a "generic" terrorist Braganza (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the previous reasons stated, this individual's actions and ideology are enough to warrant its own page Fishthatflies (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously per WP:GNG. Plenty of good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even before the attack he had a website, was on BBC and had over 40,000 followers on Twitter Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged popularity in social media does not confer sufficient notability for an encyclopaedia article. It's irrelevant. Spideog (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article!
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources is not the issue. The question of notability and BLP1E are the issues. Spideog (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met here. In addition BLP1E isn't met, given that the event is significant, and the person's role is substantial and well documented. Gust Justice (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a borderline notable public figure prior to the attack and complex enough to warrant a separate page Mason7512 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article terrorist will try it if the article become famous. Great achievement (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe U:Mason7512 is saying that if perpetrators of criminal or terrorist acts get their own Wikipedia articles that may motivate someone to commit criminal or terrorist acts in hopes of getting their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think that argument is one of the ones considered valid for a keep/merge/delete discussion on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think that's gonna happen Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that he is currently undergoing a trial and is being accused of a crime. Until he is convicted, he will be presumed innocent. QalasQalas (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article.Abstrakt (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient information aside from yesterday's car attack to merit a separate article on the identified suspect. 9March2019 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article --2A02:3038:201:7EE4:B469:EBE5:1175:5CBB (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The useful information can be merged into the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason Luigi Mangione was kept. Sushidude21! (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bafflingly, was probably notable or close to notable before this happened. What a world we live in. If it turns out to be better to cover as one article, we can merge it later, but he is one of the few mass attackers to not actually be BLP1E. He was a well known Saudi dissident and had lots of pre-attack media coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read the article, and this person had news media coverage before the car attack took place. I'm not sure how BLP1E applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough media attention to warrant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind the gap 1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources on this person, there is nothing certain about him, including the name or date of birth.Marcelus (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So BBC and Al Jazeera aren't reliable sources? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Der Spiegel, Reuters, not reliable ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source evaluation would be nice here. What are the sources that cover him before the Christmas incident? Badbluebus (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Magdebourg car attack: Better notable, the prepator article can have nonsense since there are probably poor sources, unlikely the car attack article, in addition, having two articles can be too enough, IMO. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are sources pre-attack that focus on him:
BBC News video piece on his website and what he does from 2019, how his website was a "go to resource" for refugees

The Jerusalem Post piece from 2019 on him as a refugee activist

2019 FAZ piece

2017 piece on him from the New Arab

He was covered before this. With the attack it makes this more complicated. Probably a few more, but a lot of it is in German and there's 50+ more articles that quote him, and it's mixed in with breaking news from today so it's hard to sort out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add these to the talk page to be worked on? Theofunny (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of BLP1E. Some have argued here that he was notable or nearly notable before this event but no article here reflected this alleged prior notability and any article about him would have been nominated for deletion before, as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one. Spideog (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one", don't think that's true. We don't have articles on plenty of notable people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This character only became notable for one act. My point was that prior lack of interest in creating an article underlines his prior lack of notability. Spideog (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of BLP1E, point 3 explains "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.". Event is significant, role was substantial and well documented. --ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article is about the alleged perpetrator of an attack that happened in Germany in 2024. As we have enough media attention to warrant article, person is almost a notable public figure and because this article of said person will be useful and relevant for later purposes it would be better if we keep this article especially since we have continued to keep the article of Luigi Mangione who happens to be a similar case (as mentioned by an editor). General Phoenix (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not meet WP:BLP1E because neither of points 1 and 3 in that are met: news items about him existed before the event, and he (allegedly) had the main role.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What was he doing before the attack? He wasn’t widely known and had no significant impact. His fame will be short-lived. While unfortunate, it doesn’t warrant a standalone article. Valorthal77 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I feel like this always happens with these sorts of tragedies, with the perpetrator getting their own article. The info here can easily be merged into the article it is a WP:FORK from. See 2016 Berlin truck attack#Anis Amri, Halle synagogue shooting#Perpetrator, Christchurch mosque shootings#Perpetrator for examples on how very similar articles handle this.Yeoutie (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the information in this article is already in the attack's article.675930s (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned above: The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify [his] own article.. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage had existed prior to attack, so WP:BLP1E should not apply. S5A-0043^Talk 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a case of 1E, the subject has had coverage amongst many RSes even before the incident. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability arguments of nearly everyone else. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. I think it's clear that this not a BLP1E issue because he had coverage prior to the attack. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage prior to the attack was inadequate to confer notability. Most activists are not notable even when their activity attracts occasional media notice; that is part of the game. Getting one's name in the newspapers is not enough to establish notability in an encyclopaedia (see WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be", etc., etc.). That is normal. Some activists do go on to establish notability, but this motorist had not done so before his Christmas outing. Following major news events, many Wikipedia editors, especially those comparatively new to the project, those less familiar with policies and their import, and those who do not distinguish properly between newspaper notability and encyclopaedia notability, become overexcited. For now, at least, the subject's details can be covered in the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Abdulmohsen was very unusual, being a Saudi ex-Muslim who campaigned against Islam. From this BBC item, he was "a very unusual citizen". There is the argument in Wikipedia that something can be inherently notable. By the way: I'm usually a deletionist. --A bit iffy (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments in favor of it above. Merge arguments suggested by 4 so far are not convincing.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WHY do you claim they are "not convincing"? A driveby assertion is not an argument. Spideog (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most mass killers, Al-Abdulmohsen had already become newsworthy five years before the attack. The attack may be the most notable thing he has done with his life, but it's not the only thing.Mikalra (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, newspaper "notability" is not encyclopaedia notability. This mistake is common throughout this discussion. He wasn't even impressively notable in the newspapers: he just appeared in them rarely, in a minor way. Even by media standards, he was a very minor figure. Spideog (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is notable for the attack only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs)
Delete as the subject fails the basic notability guideline at WP:GNG. WP:GNG says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that 'sources' should be secondary sources. However, most, if not all of the sources used for this subject are only supported by recent news media articles, which, per WP:PRIMARYNEWS are primary sources if they are any of the following: eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, Investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds - which most of them are. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was actually pretty well known for being an anti-Islam activist before he killed 5 people. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per WP:BLP1E into the attack article. Most of this is just about the attack and his motivation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; I would normally be opposed to articles like this being created so soon after the event, but he seems to be a complex individual with more information constantly emerging and the article covers a lot of points really well already. We can always review again whether or not the article meets notability guidelines in a few weeks/months. Buttons0603 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack article. All the sources, except one, are primarily related to news about the attack and are dated after it occurred. While the remaining source predates the attack, it is a primary source that has been promoted after the attack by additional "updates". This person is not separately notable, and as the prime suspect is not otherwise notable. Guidelines WP:BLPCRIME applies and Wikipedia should not have a separate article about the alleged perpetrator before he has been convicted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale has been offered. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." ProudWatermelon (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the article isn't WP:BLP1E though, it is that the article fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources it uses are primary, and GNG is very specific that sources should be secondary. WP:PRIMARYNEWS says recent news media articles, which most of the sources in the article are, are primary sources if they are eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds. I don't think many of the sources used escape this test.

As this rules out the use of most of the cited sources to establish notability, we can categorically say it fails the GNG notability test, so must go. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack. I don't think this man would have been notable before the terrorist attack, and it is due to the terrorist attack that he is notable. Pretty much all sources regarding this man are in relation to the terrorist attack. For these reasons, I believe that this article should be merged into the article on the terrorist attack. IJA (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this article is about the alleged perpetrator of the attack, he played an important role in the incident. So, it is only natural that there is a separate article about him, because people who are directly involved in such a major incident, especially when there is clear evidence, should indeed be recorded. Ariankntl (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its important for people to remember this moment, so the victim will not be forgotten. Donpolloinohio (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing and insufficient grounds. This is not a vote! Valorthal77 (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think...we are at a consensus. 47.157.126.174 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E, person is only known for this attack. The keep votes are symptomatic of the bias within Wikipedia. If this had been a white terrorist massacring a bunch of brown people, all those voting keep would be voting delete e.g. Brenton Tarrant. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taleb was notable for his activism prior to this attack. Firecat93 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, and his activity was limited to some posts on X. Valorthal77 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources cover for WP:GNG. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable per GNG. There aren't any reasons to remove or merge that article. Karol739 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a strange nomination. Individual is clearly notable (including for his work, which received coverage in RS prior to attack). Firecat93 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Honestly fine with either, but I strongly oppose deleting. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are substantial enough details available on the main article regarding his motive, background, etc, then not to mention the WP:RS updates in subsequent days ahead.

TheRevisionary (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was not notable before the event, but there was some coverage of his activities, notably on New Arab, BBC, Jerusalem Post, The World, Der Spiegel, Business Insider, in addition to this article in Arabic were he was accused of being responsible for a Omani lesbian's suicide. This certainly does not make him a WP:BLP1E case. In aggregate, he should be considered notable.--Ideophagous (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above
Waleed (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per a number of above arguments. Relinus (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Skitash (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Removing the article about the Christchurch perpetrator reflects sensitivity to the victims and the Muslim community affected. However, maintaining this Assault Perpetrator article ignores this principle. Is the suffering of the victims in Magdeburg considered less important than the Christchurch case? This difference not only reflects inconsistency, but can also be considered discriminatory.

Phantasmcoa (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with notability, not sensitivity. Perpetrators of genocide like Hitler, 9/11 terrorists, and war criminals like Assad all have Wikipedia pages. Firecat93 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:BLP1E due to notability prior to the attack. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was notable even before the attack. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable. TheBritinator (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. Mmnashrullah (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely known per above.

QalasQalas (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was arguably notable before the attack and has received very extensive coverage in recent days. From a content organization point of view, it would be unbalanced to place all the well-cited content in this article into the 2024 Magdeburg car attack article but yet the information here is pertinent. Greenshed (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable per others above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2024 (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.