Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Abrini

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 per discussion. there is a link to this person in Brussels ISIL terror cell, making a merge unnecessary.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abrini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Due to a previous large controversy about merging this article to the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, I have decided to open this to settle the matter once and for all. As I said before in my merger proposal, Abrini fails WP:BLP1E and is notable towards the bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is WP:GNG. Good sources. This should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per GNG. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and he is one of two of the perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings that are still alive. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources support notoriety of this criminal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is reliably sourced, subject meets the standards of WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Per nom. This man is only notable for his role in the bombings and there is a real risk of content forking if the articles continue in parallel. Will a specific article for one of the perpetrators of a notable event be relevant to our readers in 20 years time? I doubt it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is sourced. this person has been featured plenty in media in his own "right".. and is definitely notable enough for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (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.