Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul-Razzak Al-Adwani


 * 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   speedy keep - reliable sources have verifed that this person was a government minister and a rector of a university. Six days at AfD is sufficient for this one. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Abdul-Razzak Al-Adwani

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn person Oo7565 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: GS turned up nothing but wikipedia clones. Notablity not proven and not provable, fails WP:BIO and GNG, so delete. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Chzz  ►  23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we may have a transliteration issue here with looking for sources in the Latin alphabet, but the subject clearly flies through both WP:POLITICIAN as a government minister and WP:PROF as rector of the University of Kuwait and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, all of which is confirmed by the sources listed in the article. Unfortunately most of the article was a copy of the first of the sources so I have cut it back to a single sentence for now. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil; clearly notable.John Z (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious, sourced claims of notability in the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF, and probably more, as noted by Phil Bridger.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – "Government minister" passes instantly, no further discussion required. I've already issued a final warning to the nominator, who despite repeated warnings is continuing apparently going through Special:Allpages tagging articles for deletion for spurious reasons. – iride  scent   19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedural speedy keep of flawed nomination. User:Iridescent says it all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think we can do a speedy keep because the first two editors to comment supported deletion, which is the really frightening thing about this AfD. Anyone can make a mistake, but for two more people to come in and support that mistake, with nobody correcting them for two days, shows pretty clearly how little research actually goes in to most AfD discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. At some point, someone needs to go through Special:DeletedContributions/Oo7565 and revert those prods which slipped through – just on a quick skim, some were blatantly obvious keeps. –  iride scent  21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed also in looking at his contibutions, many article were deleted before prods could be removed or they be sent to a spurious AfD. Can anyone check those in histories to determine if they indeed deserved to be deleted? I'd hate them falling through the cracks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been done; I've undeleted all the deleted articles where the outcome wasn't obvious (basically, those that didn't meet speedy criteria) and set up procedural AFD discussions for them. – iride  scent   00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.