Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jad Shwery


 * 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. May well be notable, but as pointed out this is still an unreferenced BLP at this point. If anyone would like to resurrect it with sources, please ask me and I will userfy. Black Kite (t)  00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jad Shwery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find sufficient RS coverage to reflect the notability of this album musician. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability and lack of non-primary sources since June 2011.Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm. He's not an album but a musician. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so. My mistake (I had AfD'd both his album article and his bio).  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd give this a weak keep as is (and apparently I started it, which I'd forgotten!). He's a fairly significant pop figure in the Arab world, although it looked in 2006-08 as if his career might be bigger than it's turned out to be.  It's certainly a promotional mess as it stands.  If anyone else is interested in improving the article, he remains far better known by the Francophone spellling of his family name, "Choueiri". Robertissimo (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tx. That spelling also turns up a paucity of RS coverage -- zero under gnews.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - if his albums and anything else to do with him on wiki get merged into this, I think it would be sufficient enough. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Dontforgetthisone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * On what basis? We have zero RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup - part of the problem here is that the RS are in Arabic. When one does a gsearch using جاد هانى شويرى there are ca. 291K hits. There are certainaly mirrors of our article among them, but there are also hits that look like RS, although being unable to read or speak Arabic I'm a bit lost. I note that there is also an article on ar:WP. Going there I see a more succinct article than the English one has got into. (Declaration: my only interest in this article has been to protect it from BLP offences.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you put that search in quotes, you get 47 ghits (15, not counting mirrors), and zero gnews hits, and I don't see any RS coverage that meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an extreemly legnthy article, I can tell alot of time and effort has been poured into it, it has one downfall, references, none are listed, and I know uncitated material quickly dissappears, if anyone can add citations please do so. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this bio of a living person, with zero RS references, in your view "fully meets GNG". It strikes me that given its lack of any RS sources whatsoever, which you admit is the case, the opposite conclusion is the appropriate one.  The length of the article is not a factor at all, adn that seems to be all that you focus on.  That is not a criterion for meeting GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the "one downfall" you mentioned is really the only thing the matters when deciding if an article should be deleted, right?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to pass the GNG. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - was a UBLP at nomination, no references added in two weeks' listing, still an unreferenced BLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unreferenced BLP and does not meet notability threshold. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 27 October 2011 (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.