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. I'm not taking into account the two first "delete" opinions, as they were written prior to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's complete rewrite. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan Ben Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Difficult one. I think that might fails our notability guidelines and minimum requirement for sourcing. IQinn (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see how this can be considered notable. IJA (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is a hoax. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RBW is a fictional character. Our article and our scholarly sources say RBW is a fictional character. There may be some blogs or commentators from the fringe of the MSM who have asserted hoaxsters are attempting to fool the public into thinking RBW is a real individual. But WP:HOAX bans creating articles that are hoaxes. You misunderstand the policy if you think it bans writing articles that are about notable hoaxes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sort of. It would be better if we had an article to redirect this to, but I'm going to rewrite the stub instead. Seems to be a phony name used for various al-Qaeda-oid propaganda moments aimed at Islamic comics fans.[1] You couldn't make this stuff up (well, I couldn't).Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As said that might be a difficult one. Thanks for improving the article but Michelle Malkin and a Rachel Maddow Show with Keith Olbermann hardly pass WP:RS. So does this now pass WP:GNG? IQinn (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's notable and should be expanded. memri is a good source on islamist terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to establish notability it needs to pass our notability guidelines as WP:GNG what it does not do in the current form. IQinn (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — disinformation and dubious, unreliable sources. Mephistophelian (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz mentioned it would be better to have somewhere to redirect to. There was a lot of coverage by a large number of blogs at the moment and for about a year afterwards. Content is not much, and while it was suggested that he might have been a fake person, that didn't get much following either. I agree that these sources fall short of WP:RS individually, but I do think that in tandem they show it to be notable enough for mention without failing WP:BLP1E (that is, in case the subject is a living person), and also without absolute need for the subject to produce more content. Here is a pack of references, it's not everything that will come up, but they do provide an average of the available material and of its reliability: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=35207 11] 12 - frankie^MR (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem "by a large number of blogs". That is not enough. We need WP:RS and the links that you have provided are horrible example of sources that are NOT WP:RS. IQinn (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They verify the subject and that is one thing. It didn't happen as hard as to reach more main than Olbermann, but the thing to note is that every report is different, and I only linked some of them, no need to place more when they all say the same thing, and that difference I will argue is kind of notable. Then the first source is cited by several other papers discussing the middle east (that's how I came to find it). And then the subject is not only itself, but it is part of larger one, on terrorism, of war against terror, on fear propaganda, you name it. I think it should go to Al-Qaeda, but I'm no expert so maybe there's a better one - frankie^MR (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your reply. I get your point and i agree that it has "a kind of notability" but i think it should at least meed our minimum requirements for an own article and that is WP:GNG. I still doubt that the provided sources add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG. How about we move and redirect it to Al-Qaeda#Internet? IQinn (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's a very good target. There were several comments about the whole thing being targeted to comic fans, and that it was done by a media group, so Internet is appropriate - frankie^MR (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Scholarly articles have been written about this fictional character. I found an additional one with trivial effort. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to al-Qaeda#Internet, per Iqinn and Patitomr. There are plainly sources available that verify and discuss the character of "Rakan Ben Williams," but I think that any information that can be amassed about Williams can easily be covered in the main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2011 (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.