Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan

{{ns:0|B}}

:{{la|Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan}} ([{{fullurl:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

WP:BIO1E, no true notability and only serves to misinform about the plaintiff and the defendant. Keegan (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article and discussion section of this article are being constantly changed by apparent affiliated persons with the Sheikh, in order to make the victim appear to be culpable. Editors like "ElMazyoona", "Hamisha", and "Venomeve" revert the article to a blog posted on the web by Venomeve, which contains defamatory inforamtion and biased opinion. The entries by Sheikh your-Bouti and Adminchium are factual and contain correct sources for both sides, not a weak "blame the victim" argument with biased defamatory/slanderous opinion. FYI- Wikpedia has made an article review process underway, with IP address search to see if parties are associated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh your-Bouti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: No matter what is going on in "real life", this article fails Wikipedia standards for notability for inclusion, IMO. Keegan (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to delete the discussion made above as I believe in freedom of speech. However if my editing does not please Sheikh your- Bouti, Ademinchium, keegan or any other account user it is certainly not my problem. I am practicing my right to edit any article here based on facts from references. The rubbish about being associated with the Sheikh is a joke and hysterical as the article written is based on the references that are listed below. It seems that Sheikh your-Bouti, Ademinchium could not face reality and instead started a case of their own or maybe apparently it seems that they're affiliated with Mr. Orsi. The other thing mentioned about the blogger.. I believe in freedom of expressing one's opinions whether from a blogger or not.. or do you expect me to be a slave to your own ideas only?? sorry to say I shall not & I shall continue expressing myself free as a bird whether you like it or not. References can be reviewed & information is not a private property of Sheikh- your Bouti, Ademinchium, Keegan or any other user. It is there for people to read, share, discuss & debate freely. I am totally against deleting the page as this shows that information is being controlled by biased, uneducated & prejudice people who like to put info they like otherwise run to close the door & hide. Leave the door open for everyone to put their ideas whether we like them or NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmazyoona (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Classic WP:BIO1E, with a little WP:COATRACK thrown in for good measure. --Versageek 03:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:Note: I've reported this article to the BLP Noticeboard. --Versageek 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It might not be obvious from the article but the subject has a clear claim to notability under WP:ATHLETE as a polo player and club president, having [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/33312973.html?dids=33312973:33312973&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Aug+24%2C+1998&author=Judy+Hevrdejs+and+Mike+Conklin.&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=FALLOUT+FROM+BOMBING+KEEPS+POLO+STANDOUT+FROM+OAK+BROOK+EVENT&pqatl=google captained a national team] and had [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22Falah+bin+Zayed+Al+Nahyan%22&cf=all loads of coverage in reliable sources] of his club-presidential role. Most of the discussion above looks like content issues, rather than anything related to keeping or deletion of the article, which should be dealt with on the talk page or via the multifarious dispute resolution procedures that we have (do we have a procedure for resolving differences about which procedure should be used to resolve a difference?). I'm not an expert on Arabic naming conventions, but I get the idea that "bin" means "son of", so two "bins" mean "son of and grandson of", meaning that many references to a person's name won't go that far up the family tree. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Nominator is claiming "one event" status on an article about an individual (1) born into a Royal family; (2) national level athelete; and (3) also the subject of a high-profile lawsuit. This is at least a three event article. So I voice a keep opinion, and call for deprecation of the frequently misused BLP1E clause of BLP. Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: No one knew he was an athlete because it wasn't (and isn't) in the article. As Phil mentioned, the layered surnames make a Google search ineffective (I did Google the name that is the subject of the article.).. and before I trimmed the article back, it was an attack piece - scorning the subject and the entire Royal family. Even now, the article is not a balanced biography of the subject. Given the new information, this subject does appear to be notable enough for an article, but as it currently stands, this article isn't it.. --Versageek 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

::*That an article is not a "balanced biography of the subject" -- by this I assume you mean it is missing typical biographical elements, like where he studied, and other events from his early life? I suggest the absence of these details should not be considered a reason for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Born as part of a royal family. So what? Athlete part may carry weight. Lawsuit? Not notable. You should assume a bit better faith on my part as the nominator rather that essentially saying that this is "misuse". That the article on a living person is horribly unbalanced is a problem for Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with biographical details. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:BATTLEGROUND and about eight more acronyms I could toss out there as to why this article is unencyclopedia in nature, tone, and content. Keegan (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

::*I am happy to assume you are a good faith contributor.

::*I never said the article didn't have problems. But I don't think policy dictates that deletion is the appropriate solution for problems of balance or neutrality.

::*Is being a member of a royal family sufficient, all by itself, to justify an article? How many living members of the British Royal Family do we have articles about? My recollection is that of the first forty or fifty royals on the list of heirs over half have articles. And of the second fifty more than a dozen have articles. Presumably the ones who have no articles are utterly without any other notability. Being a royal doesn't establish enough notability all by itself. But I see it as cumulative. So, should we give precedence to the British Royal family, simply because this is the English wikipedia? I don't think so.

::*I stand by my assertion that BLP1E is routinely misapplied. A couple of years ago one wiseguy suggested that the Tony Blair article should be merged in the George W. Bush article, on BLP1E grounds, because no one would ever have heard of him if he hadn't supported the Bush war policy. His point, I believe, was that contrary to what many people believe, there is no meaningful objective measure for what should be considered notable, and what should be considered multiple events, as opposed to a single event. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The sports links seem just about enough that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Nonetheless the WP:UNDUE problems remain, since he seems relatively obscure for anything other than the lawsuit; even the sports links lack detail at the moment, and that probably won't change. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Merely being a member of the royal family doesn't necessarily translate into notability. Just because someone comes from the same gene pool as a monarch doesn't mean much at all - unless said relationship carries with it duties, responsibilities, actions, etc. that are notable. Since there's nothing in the article about his royal pedigree that's more important than the fact that there's a good chance he has the same blood type as the President of the UAE, it doesn't warrant an article. The material about the lawsuit is also not notable (otherwise we'd have millions of articles) and I don't see any notability in his roles in sports associations. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (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.