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.
I am changing my position as sufficient references exist to establish notability. I am not withdrawing the nomination as that would not be fair to editors who have voted to delete in good faith. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not known for anything besides his death, which seems to me like a one event thing. Mogadishu is one of the most lawless areas on earth and the government and the police exert very little control over the city. He may be the police chief by title, but did not do much Corpx (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the individual can be found; a three-sentence permastub does us no good. And please, how about an article on Somali law enforcement agencies before a random bit about one of its functionaries? - BiruitorulTalk18:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because he isnt an American police chief a´nd gets tons of recognition because of that fact doesnt mean he isnt notable. I say Keep.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the tiresome "systemic bias" excuse for justifying stubs like these... True, a police chief in a poorly-covered African country might be notable, but WP:BIO still requires the subject to have received coverage in "published secondary source material..." And true, someone like Eldrin Bell probably isn't that notable, but the solution is deletion of that article, not retention of this one in order to "balance" it. - BiruitorulTalk01:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in my own opinion, I see three counts of notability. Firstly, he was the chief of police for a nations capital, secondly, he was assassinated (yes I am aware of WP:SINGLEEVENT) and three his death received notable media coverage which stated that it was a significant moment in the course of history for that conflict and city, which leads me to believe there must have been pre-death notability to establish this individual on such a pedestal. All we have to do is find it - so I believe this is an article for expansion not deletion, personally. SGGHping!12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes AS less notable than any other police chief of the capital of a country ?. Lack of English sources mentioning him in contexts other than that of his death. This, however,does not mean that sources does not exist. Alternate sources reaffirming his notability will no doubt be found in Arabic-language websites. For the moment, the article should remain on wikipedia. --Roaring Siren (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I say because of the improvement of the article since the Afd tag was placed on it. Plus good sourcing.--Judo112 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, that is the usual words from the "lets delete all articles with non-american subject" groups. Well there is alot of independent sources.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was not to question you as the nom, I was merely pointing out the unintentional trend that seems to be prevalent here at WP. I should have been more careful in wording my point. I'm sorry.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)02:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of not assuming good faith, but the fact that articles such as Michael Gaffey remain a sub on Wikipedia and doesn't get nominated for afd. As I have said before, sources asserting his notability definitely exist, but they might not be in English. The fact that he is a police chief itself is evidence enough for his notability and rather than delete it, if we can get Somali Wikipedians to work on it, we can improve the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious keeper. To change the reason for the Afd when you suddenly realise it might not work can be discussed.. but in the end its still a Keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer and Roaring Siren, let's get real.
Yes, we know the old "systemic bias" chestnut. Oh, sure, having more articles on relevant African topics is a Good Thing. But bringing up articles on random American police chiefs (the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument) really is not a justification for topics on similarly trivial Somali ones. What should happen is an a priori consensus on what constitutes a notable police chief - and we have WP:BIO for that. And by the way, we do not (as far as I can tell) have articles on the incumbent chiefs of police of Paris, or of Berlin, or of Rome, or of Moscow - nor does there seem any particular imperative for that to change. They are, after all, civil servants, bureaucrats, unelected, serving at the behest of politicians. They may have received significant independent coverage, in which case a reconsideration would be in order, but it doesn't seem to me that notability inheres in them simply by virtue of their post.
Allow me to refer you to WP:BURDEN, an official policy. "Sources might exist" is a convenient way of dodging the issue, but if you assert notability, you have to prove it - you can't say, "oh, too bad, it's in Somali, you have to trust me on this one".
Let me give you a hint: there are no Somali Wikipedians. Oh, sure, you'll find a few names of sporadically active émigré users in Category:User so (at least one of whom is apparently unfamiliar with WP:MOS, given this), but by and large, Maslow's hierarchy of needs indicates that Somalis (who, if they speak a language other than Somali, will speak Arabic, and only then English or Italian, but who also have not had functioning schools since 1991) will spend their time fighting to survive warlords and al Qaeda, and scrambling to find whatever food they can -- they will not be sitting in air-conditioned rooms "improving" English-language Wikipedia articles on the late police chief of Mogadishu. And furthermore, the premise that considers "improvement" on Said's biography is fallacious: much of Africa's history is a blank spot, which can only be covered tentatively; the Somali economy has not provided for a consistent literacy level, and the social investment in that literacy level is likely to be diverted back into traditional occupations and a rural structure. The fact is that Somalia simply doesn't have the luxury or the interest to produce, on its own, ample coverage of its own history, not to mention its policemen.
In sum, it's terribly counterproductive keeping a worthless article and urging editors to find more Somali sources on a phenomenon (in-depth coverage of Said's life) that almost certainly doesn't exist at all. - BiruitorulTalk23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is the chief of police of the largest city and capital of Somalia. There's absolutely no denying that he is a notable person in Somalia. It's not even a close call. Thus, to the extent that it's verified that he exists and his name is mentioned in some English language sources, he's a keeper.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)02:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but "he's just notable" doesn't cut it here - particularly when considering his status as an unelected civil servant. The size of the city or its status as a capital is also immaterial - if I told you that Denis Yevsyukov, Michel Gaudin, Dieter Glietsch, Heru Winarko and Kim Seok-ki all are or recently were police chiefs in Moscow, Paris, Berlin, Jakarta and Seoul respectively - all cities considerably larger than Mogadishu - would you rush to create stubs about them? Hopefully not, because the standard thus far has been, and I hope will continue to be, WP:BIO, with its "depth of coverage" standard. We have hitherto not accorded great attention to chiefs of police; there's no compelling reason to start with Said merely because he was killed in the last few days. - BiruitorulTalk02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is a neutral, objective standard whereby we measure notability; notability isn't Brewcrewer saying "this guy's notability is absolutely undeniable" (nor is it Biruitorul saying "this guy just isn't notable"). And in any case, if his only notability lies in the impact his death had on the (already tenuous) hold of the Somalian government (and, given lack of coverage prior to his death, that does seem to be the case), then why not simply mention it at, say, Central Somalia spring fighting of 2009 or 2009 timeline of the War in Somalia? - BiruitorulTalk16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know all about objective standards of WP:BIO and I similar know all about WP:COMMONSENSE. Police chiefs of major cities are notable, end of story. WP:BIAS comes into play for precisely this scenario, when we don't have enough Somali editors to edit articles of clearly notable people using Somali-language sources. Also, the links provided above do not show that it was only his death that had an impact, which may lead to the wp:oneevent argument. What the sources show was that he was a very notable person, because only the death of notable people have a huge effect on the government of the subject's home country. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)16:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proclaiming something as "end of story" only begs the question: really? Odd, isn't it, that the police chiefs of Moscow, Paris, Berlin, Jakarta and Seoul -- or for that matter of Mexico City, Beijing, Kyoto, São Paulo and Rome don't have articles here? There's a reason for that, laid out above: they're unelected civil servants, in office (usually) briefly and at the behest of political superiors. They're functionaries who differ little across time and space. Oh, sure, some of them are bound to receive sufficient coverage - Bill Bratton, Bernie Parks - but by and large, it doesn't happen.
I don't claim Said was a nonentity. However, the relevant coverage on him all revolves around his death, and we have plenty of space at 2009 timeline of the War in Somalia to add in three or four lines on his death and its impact (which in any case is all we're bound to have on him for the foreseeable future). - BiruitorulTalk04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The chief of police of Mogadishu is notable. There is also plenty of coverage in reliable sources. His death is reported because he is notable, not the other way around. Btw, does anyone know how his name is written in the local writing? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chief of police of Mogadishu is notable - why? Because you say so? Then one naturally wonders why we lack articles on the police chiefs of most of the word's great cities; a hint is provided in my reply just above your vote. And anyway, have you considered what, if any, might be the contextual relevance of this "article", given that we even lack an article on the present-day Somali Police Force? And why, in extremis, we could not merge and redirect at Central Somalia spring fighting of 2009 or 2009 timeline of the War in Somalia? - BiruitorulTalk04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the chief in police, especially in a country like Somalia, is an important position of power. I disagree with the merge, because he is not only notable for dying. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be querulous, but do you have something to back up this assertion, or should we just accept it on faith? After all, he was just an employee of the Ministry of Interior, and his power could have been removed at a moment's notice. - BiruitorulTalk17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that this is just another case of nationality discrimination. had Ali been a police chief in any state in America we wouldnt have had this discussion right now. Strange. I still say Keep because i dont see a reason for deletion as of now.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nationality discrimination"? By whom exactly? Because if the comment is targeted at me, I take umbrage at that. I've taken great pains to justify deleting this on solid policy grounds, and for you to lazily come in here and say, "oh, goodness, if he were an American, why, there'd be no question of notability" - with no attempt to actually grapple with the points I've raised - is, well, uncharitable. Like I've stressed, Thomas Lafayette Houchins Jr., Herbert Jenkins and Roger E. Murdock likely do not merit articles here. But in no way does their presence (which should eventually be eliminated through AfD) justify Said's. We don't run a quota system here, with junk on America having to be counterbalanced by junk on Somalia. The idea is to reduce both kinds. - BiruitorulTalk17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some strange way there is still mutch more "junk" articles on American this american that, than other countries combined. strange. or not.--Judo112 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2009 (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.