Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammed al-Mous

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. I had relisted this, thinking that there was a pending request for help with a delsort listing. I realize now that I was mistaken; the delsort listing had already been made. So, closing this now as delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammed al-Mous

edit
Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammed al-Mous (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)

After adding a speedy deletion tag, and than a proposed deletion tag, they have been removed by an administrator. So, I am proposing this article be deleted through Articles for Deletion. The reason for for nomination for deletion is WP:DEL8. There is only one sentence in this article, stating that the subject is the president of Saudi Electronic University, with only one primary (direct) reference to the university website. This article is currently not suitable for the main-space and the subject has not been established as notable. That is why I am nominating for deletion, unless the article is drastically improved in the coming days. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly I note that the subject passes WP:PROF criterion 6. The difficulty with finding sources in the Latin alphabet is that transcription from Arabic is rather inconsistent, and that all the "bins" may not always be used. Indeed, the article text itself spells the last name differently from the article title, and, for example, this source spells it differently again and omits the "bin Mohammed" (his grandfather's name, I think). In such cases it is surely preferable to ask for assistance from Arabic-readers rather than to concentrate on finding a deletion process to use. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to keeping this article, not at all. However, these sources should be added to the article so that the article can be expanded and kept on Wikipedia. Thank you for notifying the WikiProject. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read Arabic, so don't have access to any sources in that language. The English-language source that I linked above doesn't confirm any more than the source already in the article, so it is unnecessary to add it to the article. My contention is the subject passes, and has been shown to pass, WP:PROF criterion 6. To get other editors more familiar with that guideline to offer their opinions would need someone to add this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, which I have been unable to do as I said, so could you please do that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The BLP is only a technical pass of the WP:Prof#C6 guideline. It is inadequately sourced for Wikipedia. It is also not clear if this recently formed university has a track record that qualifies it as a major institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep He is the head of a university, thus he passes criteria 6 for academics. We should find sources, not further systemic bias against biographies of people from outside Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "university" is not a major institution as required by WP:Prof#C6. Note that the possibility that sources may exist has never been accepted as evidence that they do exist. The onus is on the article's proponents to demonstrate evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Why the scare quotes? Whether this university is major or not may be up for debate, but there is no doubt that it is a university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not clear the the institution is a university at all, let alone a major one. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It's abundantly clear that this is a university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear? please give sources that indicate that the alleged institution has had any impact on the world of academia? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't say that. I said perfectly clearly that it's perfectly clear that it is a university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the entity claims to be a university. Whether it is accepted as being such by others is yet to be demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It is certainly accepted as such by the Saudi government. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps as I would've suggested Keep if the university was convincing enough but this is not insinuating that. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The university he is president of is not a major or established university as far as I can tell; there is not even any evidence that it is in actual operation. Other accomplishments have to be evaluated; they are not in the present article, but in the copyvio version which is his CV. The most important of them seems to have been the writing of a number of textbooks, one of which is stated to be very widely used in Saudi Arabia. If it were a college level textbook, I would accept that as an indication of notability , but it is a school textbook for lower levels, which is not usually so strong an evidence. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think this shows pretty conclusively that it is not a major institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, as requested by an IP many days ago. Relisting to allow people who see it there to have a chance to comment -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_bin_Abdul_Aziz_bin_Mohammed_al-Mous&oldid=1089512139"