Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Abdullah Alasaus


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fahad Abdullah Alasaus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These sources are a far cry from anything I'd consider reliable. They're mostly churnalism (using that word a lot today) and spammy unreliable sources. Doing an independent search brought nothing better. The IBTimes article looks convincing at first but their editorial standards are not what we expect. I also find it strange that there are almost no sources out of Saudi Arabia or in arabic. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable! I don't found any reliable sources about him on Arabic Language, all results about him related to his accounts on the social media only -- Alaa )..! 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Through my own searches on the topic, I see a clear lack of independent reliable sources for the topic. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Norm. Lapablo (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete; if a source references social media statistics then that is a good indication of unreliability; there does not seem to be many reliable news media in the Saudi film industry. Fails GNG.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  01:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – no claim of actual notability made in the article, the sources are far from showing that WP:GNG is met, and I can't find any independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the six sources that are currently in the article all have the same text (slightly rearranged or pruned in some cases, but it's still the same text) – so all we have in terms of sources is one single press release, published in six different places. That includes the IBT piece. As the nom says, churnalism. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. These are several sources about the same set of events, often thinly plagiarized from the same source. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2020 (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.