Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulrahman Elsamni


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Elsamni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was speedy deleted, but the WP:A7 was overturned at review. As part of the review process, I'm bringing this to AfD as a purely aministrative action; I offer no opinion on the merits of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails the notability guidelines for academics. There are also a lot of issues of violation of general policies that were brought up at the deletion review that are good grounds to delete the article. This was clearly a bad application of speedy A7 guidelines, but deleting the article is a clearly good call.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam that fails notability created by a now-blocked sock. James (talk/contribs) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Having written one chapter of a EU document is not at all remarkable or grounds for notability. His Masters thesis (described in the article as "his research" - sorry, but no) has been quoted in a few places. Good for him, but it does not make him meet WP:NPROF. --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The refs don't support notability. Procedure is procedure - needed to be deleted at AFD not speedy. Szzuk (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, and while doing it via AFD is more time-consuming, it would give us a strong WP:G4 in case it's re-created again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. The other questions don't matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Hurrygane (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Author should read WP:YOURSELF and WP:PROUD. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Article should also be WP:SALTed due to author's repeated recreation of it and block evasion.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - Spam, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:17, 21 December 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.