Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safia Aoude

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. CitiCat^♫ 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safia Aoude

The article lacks reliable, independent sources, and I was unable to find such sources with my googling. Prod removed by creator- no comment from creator on article, but he responded to my request for sources on his talk page by asking me to 'kindly butt off.' * FisherQueen (Talk) 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* In the nicest possible way!Phase4 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any legitimate sources either. MarkBul 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage for this person/blog Corpx 04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Safia Aoude is unquestionably notable (see expanded article) and reliable sources have been provided. How has the AfD nominator, FisherQueen, determined that this creator is of the masculine gender?Phase4 22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal home pages/blogs are not reliable sources Corpx 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only two out of the six references are home pages/blogs, the remainder being reliable sources. Are we talking about the same article?Phase4 17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using some "creative accounting" here, FisherQueen. You have lost the argument and do not want to admit it, n'est-ce pas?Phase4 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I looked at each site, and it appears that four of them come directly from Aoude, and therefore are not independent sources. A fifth is a dead link, so I don't know what's on it, but geocities does not often host anything that would count as a reliable source, since anyone can print anything there. Which of them do you think I am interpreting incorrectly? I tried to be fair to the sources, and I did find one of them that seemed to be independent of Aoude. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether the creator is male or female; I just guessed. Doesn't really have anything to do with the notability of the subject. I can't find the reliable sources; I only see blog links. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More expanding and referencing: anyone want to change his/her vote?Phase4 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those refs are reliable sources? Corpx 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turning the tables, Corpx, you tell us which of the six "References" and the one "External link" is "unreliable".Phase4 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I dont think any of them are reliable. They all look like amateur sites with no sort of editorial review Corpx 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your honesty, Corpx, you have confirmed yourself to be a natural "deletionist" (as alleged on your talk page). No doubt the closing AfD Administrator will draw the appropriate conclusion!Phase4 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of that have to do with these being reliable sources ? Corpx 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion so far seems to have lost sight of the clear "notability" of Safia Aoude. She hosted the very popular Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash website in the years leading up to the creation of Wikipedia ([1]). On 1 September 2007, Aoude returned to the subject by creating the Pan Am 103 news/blogspot ([2]). An archive of the now defunct Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash website is hosted by the independent plane-truth website ([3]). The article makes reference to Aoude's Lockerbie Trial website ([4]), extracts personal information from Aoude's web site ([5]) and uses the Critique of Safia Aoude by two independent journalists for much of the remainder ([6]). The Safia Aoude article, as updated and amended, now fulfils Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Phase4 09:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to repeat information that's already here. This is still one independent source, four web sites that come directly from Aoude, and one dead link. Are there any other sources, specifically, magazine articles, news articles, or articles on significant news web sites? -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this latest edit for starters: "After a 5-year absence, Safia Aoude re-emerged on the internet with a Pan Am 103 news blog. Her return on 1 September 2007 was hailed by Professor Robert Black as "a most welcome development". Welcome back, Safia And, contrary to FisherQueen's incorrect assertion, the "plane-truth website", hosted by author Carl A. Davies, is completely independent of Safia Aoude.Phase4 12:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like one man's web site, with no editorial review, and the comment on it certainly reads as if he's simply reprinting some of Aoude's work. It isn't an article about Aoude at all. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disingenuous, FisherQueen: the "plane-truth website" is independent of Safia Aoude and, as the site explains, provides server space for the voluminous Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash website archive. Strangely, you do not mention Professor Black's "Welcome back, Safia" link: please explain this reticence.Phase4 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for me to comment. It's a blog. Blogs aren't reliable sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability the guideline says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. As the creator and main editor of the Safia Aoude article, I am content that http://www.sappho.dk/Den%20loebende/zyklonbenglish.html, which has been accepted above by FisherQueen as independent, is the required reliable source for any material that is likely to be challenged.Phase4 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable source. Keb25 12:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of this AfD debate now requires the deletionists to admit their errors, to eat humble pie and to do the decent thing and change their untenable position.Phase4 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Miamite 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VERIFY--AmerHisBuff 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Crusio 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence or assertion of notability. Web notability guidelines would seem to apply here, since the only thing the person has done which might be notable is have a blog. No evidence blog meets those guidelines. The debate on sources above is almost irrelevant; none of the sources provide any argument for keep. Simply citing a source doesn't constitute notability. Creator appears to be canvasing to get people to argue in favor of keep. Evidence. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a battleground. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen--Truest blue 17:44, 9 September 2007 (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.