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. The SPA !votes that were completely unsupported by policy were not counted towards the consensus of this discussion. B music ian 04:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Latif Yahia Verified youtube channel ===Latif Yahia===[reply]

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

As an OTRS volunteer I'm nominating this page for deletion per the subject's request in OTRS ticket 2012012710004117. Below is the request:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am contacting you yet again in regard to the Wikipedia bio page about me, Latif Yahia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latif_Yahia.I do not know how to put his more clearly, Take the page down, I do not want a Wikipedia page about me, I did not ask for or sanction the one you have now.

While you say that you have policies that ensure that pages about living persons are balanced etc, I fear that they fail when it comes to my page. It was suggested to me that I open a "user ID" for myself to open debate with the persons editing my page so that we may find some balance only to be "blocked" by Wikipedia itself. Have you any idea what it is like to see comments by people who have no idea who you are or what you have endured in your life like

" I think that this page is only to promote a book and a movie" and "does he even deserve a whole page? maybe a paragraph?"

What I find even more frustrating is that the only two sources of information that have been left on my page are negative firstly, even though there are thousands of interviews out there by respected "household names" in journalism and these have all been swept aside in favour of two Freelance journalists who have written articles for The Guardian and the Sunday Times, well, I have written articles for Newsweek , The New York Times and various other publications but that does not entitle me to call myself a journalist for any of these publications. It should also be noted that links to my blog refuting the allegations levied at me in the articles by Eoin Butler an Ed Caesar have been removed by editors citing that my own blog is not a suitable or reliable source, yet the links of these two journalists to their private blogs are left on the page.

Wikipedia has stymied me at every turn in not only my attempt but the attempt of other editors to get this page back to what may resemble a balanced and informative biography. Are you trying to make me believe that there are no favourable articles from respected authorities out there to be added to my bio page? Or is Wikipedia itself happy with the general tone and inference of the material?

Once again, for clarity, I will ask you to REMOVE MY BIOGRAPHY FROM WIKIPEDIA, I do not want it, I did not ask for it and considering Wikipedia's current stance on it's edit I certainly do not approve of it. ... I would like to see it deleted as soon as possible and I never, ever want another one opened.

I look forward to your response.

Latif Yahia

Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person appears to satisfy WP:BIO. He is not a reclusive person known only for one thing, but is a widely covered person for many years. has written books about his experiences, and has participated in making a well publicized movie about his adventures. His approval is not required for Wikipedia to have a biography. There are remedies available if anything in the article violates WP:BLP, the policy for biographies of living persons. The article must be kept to a neutral point of view, based on reliable sources, without undue weight being given to anything. It could be protected or semi-protected if necessary. Edison (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make sure it respects neutrality. He has received significant external coverage so I don't believe he counts as only borderline-notable. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a welcome change from the socking, legal threats, and conflicted and disruptive editing done by or on behalf of the subject. However, this page is not amenable to WP:BLPDEL because neutrality and sourcing concerns should be achieved through the normal editing process, and deletion by request as a last resort. The subject is not "relatively unknown." In addition, the above request is very much a wholesale repetition of prior complaints raised at the article talk page and at BLPN. Editorial consensus — including that of the subject — seems to be that he is notable under WP:BIO and WP:GNG, even independently notable from the movie about him. That might change during this AfD process, who knows. (I'll point out there's zero indication through reliable third party coverage that the subject approaches WP:AUTHOR, so having written things doesn't seem applicable.) Assuming consensus doesn't change, though, the subject should bear in mind that he can't own his article, and that having an article at all isn't really about him. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has become notable due to his accounts of episodes in his life, published in autobiographical books, in his blog and in interviews and dramatised in a film with his co-operation. Having placed those accounts in the public view, he is not in a position to prevent balanced encyclopedic overviews that refer to his own accounts and to critical or sceptical examinations of them. NebY (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the post is heavily biased against the subject who clearly want no part of it. S.Todd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meesandee (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC) — Meesandee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Actually, it's best if the subject in fact takes no part in the article about him. Please have a look at the conflict of interest and article ownership pages. Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your position that this "heavily biased article" should be remedied through deletion instead of normal editing? JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a controversial article only because the subject is controversial. There is more than sufficient material and coverage by reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. WP:BIODEL is the relevant policy, and based on the subject and this discussion, the article should not be deleted based on that policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It encourages more research into the subject of Latif's reliability and truthfulness. There have been many 'imposters' and anyone PUBLICLY portraying himself in

questionable terms must be prepared for a staunch defense IF he is being honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.77.84 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The subject of the BIO does not object to further scrutiny of his story or indeed further research, what he does object to and the reason that he has asked for deletion is clear from complaints raised at the article talk page. The BIO has been edited by some users who have focused on articles written by two of thousands of journalists that have interviewed him in the past twenty years, no attempt has been made by any of these editors (some of whom are voting for the page to be kept) to add additional references that are positive to balance the article. To have any Wikipedia article lean to one side or the other is not within the framework of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and any article that remains unbalanced is as much anti-propaganda as it may be propaganda. If the article is not about "HIM" and is not "HIS" then it is within reason to believe that all edits and additions should be fair, balanced, impartial and thoroughly researched. As written by another commentator it should be a "balanced encyclopedic overview", it is not and from what I have seen through the edits, additions, reversions and deletions there has been far too much emotion attached to this article from editors for it ever to be fair, balance or impartial. On that basis I recommend deletion. If the story needs to be followed up, I am sure that we can do it through mainstream media etc, people are technologically literate enough to research the subject themselves. If there are any doubts about the subject's credibility, having a Wikipedia page will only drive more traffic to his website and onwards. 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.150.47 (talk) — 81.83.150.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.