Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

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. Closed early because it is evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus for deletion. This is without prejudice to continuing to discuss a possible merger on the article talk page.  Sandstein  12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (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)

not notable, WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect The controversy surrounding Innocence of Muslims is notable, and this individual appears to be centrally involved in it. However, that's all he's notable for, making this a textbook WP:BLP1E. Since the controversy of the movie involves who was behind it, any details on Nakoula that are relevant should be merged there, with a redirect left in place. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article subject fails criteria 2 and 3 for deleting under WP:BLP1E: He's unlikely to remain "a low-profile individual" and "the individual's role within (the event) is substantial and well-documented." Jokestress (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: profile, it's WP:CRYSTAL to say he will become high-profile. The film is high profile, but he's doing what he can to remain low profile. Re: substantial and documented role, my understanding is that it remains unconfirmed, and we know nothing about this man not directly relating to the film with the exception of a fraud conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not WP:CRYSTAL. Nakoula is the only person to come forward so far as being involved at a managerial level in the production of the film. See citations in article. He may be trying to keep a low profile, but that's not what's meant here. Osama bin Laden was trying to keep a low profile in the sense you mean. His actions made him very high profile. Jokestress (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing this guy to OBL is beyond laughable, so I'm not going to touch that. My reading of Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual suggests that he is much more low profile than high profile. If that changes in time, a redirect can be turned into an article, but at this time I see nothing compelling to suggest this is anything beyond BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This person made a film that caused world wide destruction. He used an alias that stated he was an "Israeli Jew" instead of disclosing he was an Egyptian Arab Christian. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know what he supposedly did; that's one event. "World wide destruction"? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In at least 3 countries in 2 regions, causing significant destruction and multiple fatalities. --Niemti (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The film is notable for those reasons. The man who may have directed it but has denied doing so? Not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (see my updated comments below) Redirect to the film Clearly BLP1E doesn't apply at all. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula played an important part in a film that sparked important riots and led to the death of an American ambassador. There goes condition 3 of BLP1E. It's also highly unlikely that this person will remain a low-profile individual since dozens of serious news organization have spent considerable time to gather info about him (and since he will almost certainly face at the very least a lawsuit from the actors in the film, see Innocence of Muslims for details) There goes condition 2 of BLP1E. That being said, the present article could be redirected for now to the one about the film since the information is still a little sketchy. But I expect that in the near future, it will make more sense to separate the two. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Except, there's no strong proof that the film (and therefore, Nakoula) was the motivation for the attack that killed the ambassador. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  True, it probably didn't motivate the attack as my sentence suggests. But it is very much an essential part of the context. That being said, my rationale above conveniently ignores the fact that although circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, there's still (last I checked) no definite proof of his involvement and no admission on his part. On second thought, I would prefer redirecting to the movie although I'm still convinced that in a week's time, this will be a stand-alone article that nobody would even think of nominating at AfD. Pichpich (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now. There are all kinds of little warning bells here, like headlines that use the word "may", and direct links to prison release records. At the moment there's still a lot of uncertainty about this. Unfortunately, I fear he will soon be fully eligible as a 2EBLP because some misguided people seem so dead-set on tracking him down. As an aside, I have to say, I am particularly annoyed by claims that his film "caused" the attacks on U.S. embassies -- Al Qaida has never really needed an excuse to do that, and they planned it out for September 11th with RPGs and heavy weapons. I don't believe for one minute that if this film hadn't been made that they wouldn't have just gone on to the next item in their web search, or the next, or the next, looking for some smokescreen to rally people with who they could use for cover. When people go soft on Al Qaida and turn around and bash our rights and freedoms as being to blame for what murdering thugs did on the other side of the world, well ... let's just say, it might tend to violate BLP. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RPGs and armored pick up trucks with AA guns are now extremely commonplace in Libya. The militias can do such stunts as occupy the airport in Tripoli because another militia has kidnapped one of their commanders, only to be kicked out by still another militia.[1] Or even attack each other towns. So it's really no need for planning in that case. --Niemti (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per WP:BLP1E. If in a few weeks, circumstances warrant, this article can be recreated. Safiel (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. This guy is going to be in the news for awhile. In addition to his role in provoking protests in numerous countries, he is likely to become a minor figure in the current U.S. presidential election. It may ultimately become appropriate to merge this with the article about his movie, but I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see how this plays out before making that decision. As an aside: I think User:Wnt is mistaken to be "annoyed by claims that his film 'caused' the attacks on U.S. embassies." Based on present evidence, it appears there is a good chance that Al Qaeda carried out the attack that killed four people including the ambassador in Libya, but I don't think anyone has proferred evidence suggesting that Al Qaeda was the instigator of the protests that have occurred in other countries including Yemen and Egypt. I think both Nakoula and Al Qaeda separately and independently planned their provocations for the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they fed into each other. Nakoula's film fueled protests, and Al Qaeda was able to opportunistically use those protests as a smokescreen and pretext for its assault on the U.S. embassy in Libya. However, I think it is a bit far-fetched to imagine that Al Qaeda simultaneously planned and organized protests in several countries simultaneously, while only using deadly force in one of those countries. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the video trailer (all anyone has seen) was released in July. It was up to an Egyptian political party to object, and an Egyptian TV station to air the footage (including, oddly enough, someone playing Muhammad), both three days before 9/11. Their choice of time, not Nakoula's. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, you make a fair point that the choice of timing for publicizing the video on 9/11 may not have been Nakoula's. However, you're omitting the role played by right-wing anti-Islamist Christians both in the United States and Egypt in promoting this movie. According to Wikipedia's article on Innocence of Muslims, pastor Terry Jones (the same guy who previously engaged in the provocation of burning a Koran) "said on 11 September 2012 that he planned to show a 13-minute trailer that night at his church." Clearly, Jones deliberately timed this showing for 9/11. The Wikipedia article also states that the movie "was brought to the attention of the Arabic-speaking world by Coptic blogger Morris Sadek whose Egyptian citizenship had been revoked for promoting calls for an attack on Egypt." Nakoula is a Coptic Christian, like Sadek, and I think the facts that are emerging suggest that Nakoula lied when he claimed the movie was financed by Israelis. In fact, it was likely financed by his circle of Copts. I think you're right that there are Egyptian extremists who found the timing of 9/11 convenient for their own purposes, and they likely acted independently of Nakoula. It appears to me that this is a case where religious extremists -- both the Islamist and Christian -- are trying to use the occasion of 9/11 to stir up religious hatred. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add also that I think it is especially despicable for Nakoula to be claiming that the movie was financed by Israelis and to be also posing himself as an Israeli-American. It is bad enough that he is trying to provoke anger and hatred. It is even worse for him to be directing that anger and hatred against Jews, who are already targets of extreme anti-Semitism especially in the Middle East. If Nakoula is going to say things that provoke anger and hatred, he should at least have the courage of his convictions and identify himself and his religious beliefs as the source of those hateful statements. It is cowardly and despicable to try to channel those feeling against Jews. His provocation may well get some Israelis killed. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:RS for WP:BIO are global and overwhelming. BLP1E does not apply to a person with this level of notability--just as it does not apply to John Wilkes Booth. Qworty (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What level of notability? We still know almost nothing about this guy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What notability? Are you kidding? Buy a computer and then get yourself an Internet connection. Find a website called Google News and then type this guy's name into it. Then have a look at WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Then change your opinion to Keep. That's all there is to it. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Qworty (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, keep civil. Second off, all of that coverage is part of this one event, meaning it's not GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which arguments? Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, saying keep or delete "per above" is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is notable for much more it seems as the article itself points out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable figure with reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is notable because of his creation, and also the coverage he gets in the news. Dream Focus 01:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage that fits under BLP1E? I'm really surprised by the number of keep votes, but most of them don't seem to address BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He meets WP:Entertainer just fine. Dream Focus 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No he doesn't. (1) Only one film, not multiple; (2) no evidence of a fan base or cult following; (3) there is impact, but not "to a field of entertainment" – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me. He meets WP:CREATIVE number 3 "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Dream Focus 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- not sure why this warrants a standalone at this point, though I could see it developing that way in the future. For now, all the personalities (or aliases) are being developed in the Innocence_of_Muslims article, so it'd be good to keep the critical mass there until a separate article needs to be broken off. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reluctantly. Creating a film that has resulted in the assassination of an American official as well as significant protests abroad. This person has satisfied the John Hinckley threshold at WP:BLP1E, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Over 90,000 hits on Google as of this moment, a number that has been growing all day and will probably go even higher. I suggest a speedy keep per WP:SNOW at this point. Qworty (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It appears that while the figure is controversial, they are clearly notable enough for a wikipedia article. There seems to be more than adequate references and no true reason or consensus for deletion. Recommend speedy keep at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lots of buzz about this guy since the embassy attacks, and lots of news, like so [2]. Unflavoured (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The whole history of his criminal activity does not belong in the article about the attacks. The question of whether he made the movie belongs there, but the being charged with possession of an illegal substance, taking out money in false names etc etc. is not relevant. Amandajm (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Personal opinions about his ability as a filmmaker aside, we have a properly documented article on a purported filmmaker whose actions have given him well publicized noteriety. As with any comprehensive BLP on such individuals, sourced information on even a criminal background has bearing on his subsequent actions and motivations, and serves to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The guy's first film and he's world famous already? Just wait to see the sequel! --Niemti (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (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.