Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud


 * 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. The "keep" opinions merely assert inherent notability, mostly without explaining how this view has a basis in policy or practice, and more importantly without discussing the BLP concerns raised.  Sandstein  16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are many Saudi Arabian princes and they are not inherently notable. This particular article falls afoul of WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:BLPCRIME. There doesn't appear to be any notability outside of this single event. Additionally, the negative tone verges on being an attack page. BLP articles should be very careful when it comes to unsubstantiated rumors of illegal behavior. clpo13(talk) 15:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Indeed there are many Saudi Arabian princes but they are inherently notable as Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy where each prince can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently as valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. Especially here when the media coverage has conferred significant notability on a high-profile criminal act and meets guidelines regarding reliable sources, which I think it has. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but revise to remove extremely negative tone. I agree that the Prince may be notable, probably meriting a stub article at this point. The article, however, is currently a borderline attack page. R. A. S immons Talk 14:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify that I support a keep vote if and only if there is a pretty big overhaul regarding tone. R. A. S immons Talk 13:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete instead as whether or not all Saudi princes can be found notable, this is still questionable for better even with considering removing parts of the article, there's simply nothing else convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister   talk  04:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep • Arts Rescuer  14:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why the article should be kept? Remember that AFDs aren't a vote. clpo13(talk) 22:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He is notable because he is a prince • Arts Rescuer 22:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC) ArtsRescuer has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of  - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many Saudi princes, but princes are still notableDeathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly start over - This page is currently a WP:COATRACK, apparently written to disparage the subject. That was the reason for its speedy deletion 2 months ago when created by the same editor. Please note in a similar case, there was no finding of inherent notability of the hundreds of Saudi princes. There is nothing to salvage here. If, and this is unlikely, notability can be demonstrated beyond the WP:BLP1E case presented here, the article can be recreated. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are real BLP concerns here, but more convincing is the link posted by SummerPhDv2.0 above to an almost identical AfD where the consensus was that an individual Saudi prince wasn't automatically notable merely by dint of being a Saudi prince, and the crime stuff doesn't pass WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BLP1E. I'm loath to wander into WP:OTHERSTUFF territory but in this instance I think looking at other directly comparable examples is instructive - it seems fair to take that as a precedent on this occasion when it comes to whether being a Saudi prince clears the GNG. Seems to me we either have the full set, or else none unless they have the sources to establish independent notability beyond their royal status, and consensus already seems to have moved towards the latter. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤  10:59, 1 June 2016 (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.