Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad raouf


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Emad raouf

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

non-notable actor Ipatrol (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Let's put this one out of its misery quickly. There is absolutely no evidence of notability anywhere.  There are no secondary sources - either in the article or online.  The number of red links seems to indicate that there are no Wikipedia articles for anything this chap is involved with, which even though not a determining factor, could be taken as an indicative factor of non-notability.  Finally, the one "reference" in the article is a dead link!  He's had his ten minutes in the Wikipedia sunshine, but I think it's sunset now!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - It appears to be possibly an autobigraphy. Although that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion, it does suggest that sourcing for the claims to notability need to be strong. No sourcing is provided.  The single reference is a dead link.  A check on the wayback machine shows this to be formerly the website of probably this person's church.  That wouldn't establish notability, and a link to the front page of a church isn't useful for verifying anything.  Presumably, it might verify that he was ordained a deacon at the age of 9 as claimed in the article.  His career as an actor or theatre director doesn't appear to be in any way remarkable.  My guess is that he heads up an improv team based on the description in the article.  There are no English language sources to establish notability.  This may be a case of systemic bias, so if Arabic sources turn up, I can be convinced to change my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (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.