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 due to OR and NPOV unsalvagability. Also, anything here would already be in the OBL page if necesary, so nothing is lost by deleting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. There are no pages on Worldwide Perception of George W. Bush or Worldwide Perception of Winston Churchill, and it would be completely extraneous to create them. A person's article should cover their public perception insofar as it is notable and important to their lives and to history.
2. This kind of article will do nothing but cause arguments and lend a platform to unsubstantiated POV garbage. (See the argument about Osama being an "Anti-American folk hero" on the talk page.) "Worldwide perceptions" is so vague a title that almost any set of morons with an opinion can be included. I can see no real benefit to Wikipedia by maintaining articles like this, and therefore I submit that it be deleted. -Thesocialistesq04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the least merge but do not delete- worldwide perception regarding OBL is varied and reveals a lot about the society that perceives him. He continues to be the symbolic leader of worldwide Sunni terrorism, and a great deal of terrorism is fueled by how certain societies view him as a hero, rather than by his direct action. On the other hand libertarians can argue that Western perceptions of him make him a larger than life force of evil that has resulted in a loss of personal liberty due to the militarisation of government. Whatever your own perceptions of him are, it can be shown the varied perceptions of him are an important topic of study. Green hornet05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Current article is functionally a content fork of the main OBL article. Verified, cited material should be included there instead, giving due weight to varying points of view. Serpent's Choice 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Delete. I started to examine this article with the intention of practicing what I preached and beginning a bold merge (or, at the least, a bold comment on the main article's talk page), but reached the same conclusion noted below ... this page is devoid of actual content. Even the quotes in the fatwa section, from major speakers whose comments can surely be verified from well-established responsible sources, are largely message board posts. I stand by "Merge" as the typical approach in cases like this one, but here, there is simply nothing of substance that will be lost. Serpent's Choice07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super-uper-dooper Delete While I understand the above points of view and don't generally disagree, this is a special case.
Please read the article in full to see what I mean. Six cites total. 3 (half) that support the 'OBL is in love with Whitney Houston' (FOX, etc...). A fourth cite is to a Chomsky editorial. A fifth cite is to support claims of jokes about Osama bin Laden.
I mean, REALLY. (RECAP, again, please review the article)
6 cites total about the 'worldwide perception of OBL' of which
The remaining one is in a sentence that 3 times asks for citations in regards to his tactics.
IMO, this article is a complete embarrassment vs Encyclopedic value.
I should add that this material will never survive (IMO) a merge into the OBL article. I have edited/watched the OBL article over a long period of time and I assure you that this is the case. This stuff will not be accepted by consensus in the OBL article in the foreseeable future unless hell freezes over and we get free ice skates due to it being complete primarily speculation and/or editorial matter.
Delete I agree with That Guy that there doesn't look like a lot of usable material here; it is kind of a mish-mash, and most of it isn't very good. Brianyoumans07:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many [citation needed]s. I would have been for a merge, but on taking a closer look, one sees that the rare things in this article that are backed up are already in other articles. The rest is unsalvageable. yandman07:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Please, folks, AfD is not the place to discuss the poor state of the article. Whining about how bad the sources are is silly when you're talking about a topic like this one, since it could easily be the topic of a serious and straightforward article with better sources. Poor sources is not a reason to AfD unless the sources are inherently poor due to the topic. This is quite obviously not the case here; this topic is written about in a variety of sources and has been for years. Anyway I don't think this is the best topic for an article, I'm for merging whatever might be here that isn't already on the OBL article, or for having an article on this but with a different title and focus. There is plenty to record about how OBL is perceived worldwide (in fact, a list of polls on the matter would be extremely helpful), but I'm not sure this is the way to do it.--csloat08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I broadly agree with the reasoning behind the delete motions, however to my understanding a merge is the correct process to use (as the article has the potential to be informative, even if it isn't currently). However if during the merge process there is little new content to add (as seems to be the case here) then, for all intents and purposes, you are left with either redirecting or deleting. I have no problem with redirecting the title to the OBL article in situ. Rockpocket08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - there's not much content to merge here, other than the topic itself. A topic section on the OBL article about polls or perception of him would be useful.csloat10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. csloat said:Please, folks, AfD is not the place to discuss the poor state of the article. Whining about how bad the sources are is silly when you're talking about a topic like this one, since it could easily be the topic of a serious and straightforward article with better sources.
While I do agree in the majority of cases (normally I don't comment like the above in an AFD!), I do believe that in light of no improvements since the last AFD, it is not likely to be salvageable. Hopefully, someone will prove me wrong and make something of this article before AFD is over and I can reconsider my view.
Well, it's not likely to happen during the AfD. Five minutes of research would make this a better article, but I don't care to do it myself at this moment, and particularly not under the pressure of an AfD. That's why it's bad to use AfD to try to improve an article. When an article is poor, the answer is to improve it rather than AfD it.--csloat10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the wholesale piece of original research based on a couple of random publications plus a collection of chaotic facts taken from who knows where. There are no references here that specifically discuss and classify Worldwide perception. `'mikkanarxi08:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OBL with redir. There is absolutely no reason not to have an article of this title. We have many sub-articles on all sorts of facets of notable people. However, it's poorly sourced and basically original research. So, what's left can easily fit in the Osama article. I oppose deletion because there's nothing wrong with an article in principle, yet an AFD vote would effectively preclude ever re-expanding this out to a full well-sourced article. No reason that couldn't be done if someone cared enough to do it. Derex10:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A delete for no present salvagable content does not preclude creating a new, clean, article. (Written without looking at the article — just a general comment on the deletion processs. Even if an article could be placed at this name, deletion is appropriate if none of the article is here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk)15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, you're right. In practice, you're wrong. People routinely ignore the rules on when they can speedy a re-creation. When admins get that right, then maybe we can delete without fear. Derex05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be salvaged. While Derek has a point, I thing the underlying issue here is that the war being fought is also a media war and a war of perceptions, where Al Qaeda's media strategy and its impact are obviously important. I would rather have an article about it rather than one about OBL's public image. Stammer 10:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless the entire article can be cited, if that happens before closing please let me know on my talk page. Right now as it stands its a monster of original research. It kind of reads like an essay trying to prove a point, so I would prefer its rewritten as well in a less POV way and more counter arguements given before I would feel comfortable changing my opinion. --NuclearZer013:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be salvaged, but delete the namespace. We do not need a redirect, as it is unlikely to be a search term.--Rosicrucian15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and no redirect anything useful, which I don't see myself, but may be there anyway, should go in the main article. No redirect, nobody is going to search for Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden without searching for Osama bin Laden first. User:Pedant21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge "Worldwide perception"-type content should be restricted to the subject's article (unless the article needs to be split and it is heavily sourced). Merge what you can, ditch the rest. EVula23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing left to merge, all valid content of this article is already in the main article. It is not the writing style that condemns it so much as the lack of additional notable encyclopedic content that is not already in the main article. Bejnar19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect content is wikipedic in so far as thoroughly treating the subject.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim02:39, 2 November 2006 (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.