Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah S. Al-Salloum


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah S. Al-Salloum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual. The sources cited are articles written by him but there does not appear to be any independent coverage where he is the subject. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a lack of indepdent 3rd party sources about him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to provide time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
 * Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep. The subject clearly meets the criteria for notability. WP:BASIC: "The subject is presumed notable if he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This can be seen here, here, here and here. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". This primary source proves what this secondary source says. WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The subject has contributed in his field of Economics with the accounting tool discussed on his page that has had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers. WP:NACADEMICS: The subject is considered as researcher in the field of economics, whose scholars, under “Recent Publications” are published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions. Translating them gives economic analysis that is based on the subject’s own thoughts and ideas that bring up conclusions, suggestions and advices. The subject is also listed in the Arabic Wikipedia here, meeting its notability criteria, with the same content and given primary and secondary sources.Juffran (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) — Juffran (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over, perhaps. Every citations is non-English...many appear to be website ephemera, but it's impossible to tell. Yes, I know about WP:NOENG, but there's no logical justification for having an article for which the typical reader cannot read/check/follow-up on the sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete machine translation suffices to inspect these sources for non-Arabic readers. Reference #1 is a web forum and #3 is some documents someone uploaded to a file share service, and can be disregarded. It's plain that everything else is either merely links to things the author has written (refs 4,5,6); a quip in an interview (ref 7); articles about Ponzi schemes that don't mention this author (refs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); or information about a particular financial calculator website (13, 14, 15). None of which meets notability requirements. Notwithstanding the efficacy of the translation, the article is missing basic biographic information that would help validate the creator's research, such as subject's education or employment. Incidentally this and this suggest that one of the article's contributors is playing games with his/her identity. - Bri (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merely trivialising those sources because you do not fully know their reliability is clearly an unfair thing to do. Ignoring the fact that the subject has made researches that have had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers also shows that the research you have done is not in-depth. The subject has had several of his scholars, under “Recent Publications”, published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions.Juffran (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. It appears that those who have voted for the article to be deleted are clearly doing so because they do not understand the language the sources are written in. Like the commenter above me has clearly stated, what he did was a machine translation. How can one know the reliability of a source from a machine translation?Juffran (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about the reliability of the sources, it is whether or not the sources discuss the subject in depth. Everyone apart from you is clear that they do not and this is easily verified from machine translations of the sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When you dropped a notice on my talk page that you had nominated the article for deletion because the subject is not notable, I had to go back to read the guidelines from the beginning to see if I had read a different thing before creating the article. I thought I was totally wrong until I discovered that this was done because the sources given are not in English. As to why I am the only one in support of the article staying, it could be because I am the only one not depending on some machine translations. Instead of nominating the artcile for deletion, you probably could have suggested that the article be further improved upon with more sources added. The subject is notable because he passes a number of given criteria.Juffran (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or is it, I wonder, because you were paid to create the article? Sockpuppet_investigations/Juffran/Archive. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Talking about paying me to create the article, I have clearly read the guidelines to follow in disclosing paid editing. So, if I was paid, you would have seen it clearly on the talk page. The sockpuppet investigation you quoted here was closed, so why have you referred us to it. Even if I have cautioned myself not to ask this for a long while, I just have to ask. Do you have any issue with me, as I discovered you have also reverted a few of my other edits? The only reason I am defending this article is that it was nominated in error, and I need to correct the impression that the individual is not notable when he clearly passes the notability criteria. Juffran (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AGF that you weren't acting in cahoots with other entities to get these published, it's very impressive that you are able to create articles like this one using 100% Arabic sources, and Gongniu Group Corporation using 100% Mandarin Chinese sources. - Bri (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If that impresses you too much as to come speak about it publicly, then I wonder what will happen when you read about Bella Devyatkina. She is my next project as I noticed she doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet, so you might want to sit back and watch out. Besides, I do not see how your comment relates to the issue of the subject not being notable, other than a well-crafted and calculated attack on my personality when you clearly do not know me or my abilities. Juffran (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not I don't ​have an opinion about you personally. But cowboy editors who come in with six guns shooting to defend Chinese electrical cord manufacturers or whatever tend to have short lifetimes here. "Everyone apart from you is clear" coming from a seasoned admin is what you should be paying attention to. Good luck. Bri (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete yes, the non_English issue isn't a problem with Google Translate. While he is certainly quoted in several news articles it's not enough to pass GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already established the fact that the subject pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMICS. Juffran (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to me you haven't. And not based on the very refs you've provided and those on the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So what about a Google search on the individual? It didn't give you results still? Well, all the reults you would find are not in English and I should have been spending the time spent here to improve on the article with more sources. I guess I should concentrate on doing that over the coming days Juffran (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2017 (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.