Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir al-Shihri

=[[Aamir al-Shihri]]=

:{{la|Aamir al-Shihri}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Aamir al-Shihri}})

The subject is only notable for a single event. Delete per WP:PSEUDO. 4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)



:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


  • Delete, or redirect to the list article. (Actually, he is not mentioned there either).--Dmol (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Making a nation's most wanted list, and later being involved in a shootout equals two events in my opinion. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Have to agree with Ryan. That's more than one event and the coverage is significant enough to meet WP:GNG albeit notoriously.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge If you look at the main article for Saudi list of most wanted terrorists, you'll notice that almost every entry (at least under December 6, 2003) shares the exact same sources. These men were wanted, but more for being radicals than personal acts of terror - there's not much to satisfy WP:BLP1E in this case, let alone GNG. EDIT: One could also conceivably merge all of these details into the Saudi most-wanted list, given that they're shared across 5-6 stubs. m.o.p 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect or failing that, weak delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, source 1 is more coverage of the list than the individual, what we learn about the individual is minor and source 3 doesn't mention the article subject at all, leaving source 2 as the closest thing to a claim of significant coverage, and that claim borderline. Since what information we do provide seems well-enough sourced there's little reason to remove it entirely, and a merge provides the reader as much information about the subject as this limited "biography" would. --joe deckertalk to me 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

: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.