Delete Per the closer: "The result was delete as a WP:BLP1E that is also a WP:BLPCRIME accusation with no documented conviction. WP:BLP1E is an intentional exception to WP:GNG, so appeals to GNG and related guidelines are not effective counterarguments. Given the nature of this case, I will be courtesy blanking this discussion page tomorrow."

!Vote was 7 keeps to 5 deletes Evidently that is a consensus to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... We both know that its not a democracy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, on those rare occasions that Icewhiz and I agree entirely on something related to a BLP, it's likely there's a pretty strong Wikipedia policy reason. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to a courtesy blanking, the record needs to persist because there is every possibility that this page will be recreated or a page for the incident itself (which wouldn’t violate BLP but would pass GNG) will be created. I believe that courtesy blanking is only appropriate when there is a low chance of page recreation which is certainly not the case here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We know you don't care about the !votes or the WP:Consensus.

WP:Duck.

Like the fatal results of a doctor's malpractice, courtesy blanking is being done here to 'bury your mistakes.' Yes, you have the power. But no, you do not recognize the concomitant responsibility and accountability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review is over there, although I encourage anyone considering it to brush up on WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:NHC, and for that matter WP:BLP1E. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting it was deleted after only 7 days, and within a few hours of a major expansion of the article that demonstrated there is more to this story than a simple 1E. This was a complicated case, involving multiple countries legal boundaries and preexisting crimes for which he was guilty (legally) and which sources in the article discussed. -- GreenC 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreenC I agree...I am asking the closing administrator to consider either extending the AfD or using the policies WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NOCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to lay this out in more detail to hopefully dispel any misunderstandings:

• Biographies of living people who are covered in sources in relation to a single event are a special case that is explicitly called out in WP:N and explained in detail at WP:BLP1E. The arguments for deletion were based primarily on this policy.
• The arguments for keeping contain no refutations of the applicability of BLP1E.
• Upon review of the article itself and the associated sources, there is nothing that indicates that BLP1E does not apply. (I reviewed the article in its most recent form prior to closing, and reviewed it again in preparing these comments, so I am not ignoring any late additions.) All of the sources in the article discuss the subject in the context of the same event, as do all of the additional sources mentioned in the AFD. The coverage does mention other aspects of the subject's life, but none of them are anything that would otherwise be considered notable. He appears to be WP:LOWPROFILE as per the criteria in the explanatory supplement to BLP1E, and the event he is associated with (even if it is notable as an event) is not especially significant. In short, he does appear to meet the criteria for BLP1E.
• In the discussion, seven editors favored keeping and six (including the nominator) favored deletion. However, deletion discussions are not always a "majority wins" situation. Since the delete arguments appealed to a relevant, deletion-related WP policy and were not refuted by the keep arguments, the slightly greater number of "keeps" was not decisive.
• Since a couple of comments hint at some sort of bias or hidden motive on my part, let me say explicitly that I don't have any prior knowledge of this person in particular, or any beef I can recall with any of the participating editors, or (perhaps most important) any strong interest in whatever Israel-Palestine political BS this article may be related to.
• Seven days is the normal duration for an AFD that has adequate participation. I routinely close AFDs in the same timeframe without controversy.
• Courtesy blanking does not delete the history of the discussion. Any reader can still read the full discussion if they wish. What it does is reduce the likelihood of the material being found through search engines or casual browsing.

Editors are welcome to ask me questions at my user talk page, or to appeal to WP:DRV. Otherwise, I expect these are my last comments on this matter. --RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what I find the most interesting? It is the number of times that 7&6=thirteen pops up at AfD and says that WP:BEFORE wasn't complied with. I estimate in excess of 50% of the time. That's just trolling and is disruptive.

It is also interesting the number of times that 7&6=thirteen !votes to "Keep" without any reference whatsoever to a relevant policy or guideline - just banal comments like "Once notable always notable" or "Clearly notable" or "subject meets WP:GNG" or "article can/should be developed".

It is also interesting the number of times that 7&6=thirteen and Lightburst have !voted on the same AfD's. I'm not saying anybody is doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out how interesting it is that out of a total of 45 intersecting Afd's, 7&6=thirteen and Lightburst only !voted differently two times. Hardly remarkable until you realise also that out of those 45 !votes, 7&6=thirteen has !voted against the consensus 7 times (excluding the "no consensus" results which add another 5 results). Also, out of those 45 !votes on those intersecting topics, 7&6=thirteen has *never* !voted to Delete.

It gets more interesting when I add in another editor, Dream Focus. Those three editors have 34 AfDs in common. Dream Focus has also never !voted to "Delete" on any of the intersecting articles.

So it is most remarkable that with three editors (such as the ones mentioned here as an example) pretty much always !voting the same way, that any AfD's would close to a different result. I mean, how could any closing admin possibly not see that a "consensus" was reached and to act according to the way those three !voted. I worry about non-admin closings when it can look like a Snowball Keep but there is really no argument presented based on policy/guideline.

So thankfully, despite what some editors are saying here, it seems that some admins don't blindly count !votes and actually look at the arguments presented. Just like this other recent AfD where I first started to take notice. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Argumentum ad hominem.^[1]

Really? Which bit? Are the facts wrong? Also, rather childish making the same comment on an AfD I nominated. ^[2] HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can pull up the deletionist cabal statistics. which includes present company. Not hard to do. But irrelevant, not helpful to the project, and contrary to WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it a bit backwards. It isn't right to bring up a person's stats in order to invalidate their !vote at an AfD - like the way your buddy Lightburst did recently at this AfD. But is isn't contrary to AGF to point out *after* an AfD some noticeable !voting patterns and repetitive behavior on your part, especially if it could be deemed disruptive. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!voting with consensus 38 out of 45 times is a good record 84.4% -- keep up the fine work 7&6=thirteen. -- GreenC 21:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually highlights a lot of problems I encounter at AfDs - people don't read properly and the bits they do read are misquoted or bent out-of-shape. The actual percentage is that (a mere) 73% of the time, 7&6=thirteen !voted in line with the eventual decision of the AfD. The key point (which you appear to have missed) is that this statistic is remarkable when you consider that these AfDs included three editors who always !vote the same way and who, after a result doesn't go their way, contest the decision on Talk pages and moan and groan that people are not correctly implementing WP:CONSENSUS. This is also extremely disruptive and (in my opinion) bordering on meat-puppetry. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I like to think that I helped improve most of those articles, and brought them along to show they should be kept. Indeed, WP:Before and WP:NEXIST have been at the core of my article improvement – I add sources that should have been considered before nominating for deletion – not just defense of ill-conceived WP:AFDs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Would you like me to provide links to AfDs where you made the allegation that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed but where you are blatently incorrect? From what I've seen, you make that accusation just to attack the nom and for no other reason. That is disruptive. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that this is about 'case selection.'

Prosecutors who claim a 97% 'victory' rate, know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. I pick my disputes and my efforts to save articles carefully. See Kenny Rogers, The Gambler.

This does not portend bias, but it may reflect judgment. This is what I do professionally. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blanking. We need a record of this AfD. The person was already published all over the news and in a terrorism book. Keeping the record of the votes, and the deletion against consensus is important. Additionally, the main proponent of the BLP1E policy argument is now a blocked sock (E.M.Gregory). I feel that consensus should be honored. More editors agreed that this was not BLP1E. 7 to 4 now that the sock is not counted. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with Lightburst's comment.

Speaking of Argumentum ad hominem, User:E.M.Gregory's account is now in fact a blocked sock. In my experience, at AFD discussions, that gets his !vote, and perhaps his comments, are routinely struck. One less delete in this tally. Effectively a variant of Ballot box stuffing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't automatic for a sock to have their !vote struck and certainly never (in my experience) in cases where the AfD has closed already. If you object to the closing, take it up at the appropriate forum, WP:DRV. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are both good editors and your participation is needed in these AfDs. 7&6=thirteen is a good editor. As a GF editor I see an article which was significantly improved with WP:SIGCOV, and had WP:GEOSCOPE. The question is whether a majority of editors have been dismissed in favor of a minority opinion. I hope we can keep this discussion to whether or not the policies were ignored in this AfD delete. I have gone to the closing administrator's talk page as a first step, asking for a reconsideration. The blocked ivoter was tendentious in this and other AfDs involving Israel and even came to my talk page with what seemed to me like a threat. WP:CONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockmaster dom't get struck. An admin, bbb23, just undid a strike on EMG at a different AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant that EMG was a sock. See my comments above. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to challenge a closure of an AfD remains WP:DRV. nableezy - 14:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Nableezy I am waiting for the closing administrator to respond Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't peremptorily and prematurely close it. Nor did I block the sock. These events were all beyond my control. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that an WP:AFD closing renders your close incontestable and free from further comment. I disagree. Accountability is important, and there are many forums and ways to seek an accounting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what precisely is that supposed to mean? Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stated two places that concerned editors could go (User talk:RL0919 and WP:DRV) to ask additional questions or contest the deletion. This advice reflects the standard practices for disputing deletions. If anyone wishes to vent here instead, that is their choice but not something I plan to participate in. --RL0919 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]