Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monther Alkabbani


 * 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   keep. without prejudice to retitling and/or the addition or redirects to handle transliteration issues j⚛e deckertalk 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Monther Alkabbani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is full of problems-none of the refs were reliable (they went to Twitter and a form, the "official' site went to Twitter) the birth info is odd (1970 and 1957!) and none of the books even have pages on here-too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of notability. Article obviously fails WP:GNG. All I can find with my search is facebook, twitter etc. Which can not establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: This writer has an article on the Arabic Wikipedia which I have just linked, showing a bunch of refs from, what seem like, reliable Arabic media. Seems like this nomination is another case of WP:BIAS and researching notability using the wrong language? Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG. I found nothing to establish its notability. I have no Idea of how a subject that is obviously non-notable will suddenly become notable because some of its content is written in arabic. Rewritten those content in english cannot make him notable. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment': article should be rewritten, preferably by someone who understands Arabic. - Takeaway (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment-Its not bias when there was nothing linked there and the fact that when I tried finding him there was nothing I could find. Wgolf (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Quote from WP:BIAS: "Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic."
 * -Okay I think it needed a better term now then bias as when I saw the word bias I thought it was trying to say that I was wanting it to be deleted ha ha. Anyway-we will see what happens! Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't help it that that is what it's called here on WP. But yeah, next time try looking for sources in the native language, or, as in this case, the native writing system. - Takeaway (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment-That is true-there have been a few cases where the articles are linked to another language so then its "oh wow they are notable then" when in fact it is nearly the same case. (There is another person I think from Arabia that i have a AFD up for now that has a linked page to another language but is basically the same all links to unotable places) Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The writer isn't notable because they have an Arabic wikipedia page, what I wrote was that on that page there seem to be references by reliable Arabic newspapers. This makes the writer notable, also for the English language wikipedia as per WP:BIAS. It's a very basic thing really. I see WP:GNG being used as an argument. I quote from WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English." - Takeaway (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:I don't think is a good idea to assume that they are automatically notable here. I search through with his name in arabic, I see nothing than facebook, twitter, is own personal work and few RS. All of which are insufficient to pass WP:GNG here. I assume, there are more stringent in the English wikipedia than any other languge wikipedia because few people participates in those project, which could retard information verification by editors. In addition the source used in that language (Arabic Wikipedia) by the author of the article might even be entirely primary sources. This is an english wikipedia, all references must be provided to support every claims. Since he already have an article in Arabic wikipedia, I think that's ok for him. Every information there can be translated for use in english by its reader and not necessarily having an article here. But let see how it goes. Wikicology (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please understand, for the 3rd time I state: look at the references on the Arabic Wikipedia article and don't try looking for stuff in a language and writing that you don't understand. In the article in the Arabic Wikipedia, one can clearly and easily see that the references used are by Al Riyadh (newspaper) here, and by Al Watan (Saudi Arabia) newspaper here. And I also found this article by Al Watan. I really have no idea how you did your search because it is strange that nothing significant showed up with you. Apparently, even while I don't read Arabic at all, I have a nose for finding stuff which apparently, you don't because I found a large amount of Google results that are not at all "only facebook and twitter". I am also of the opinion that people who are unable to read Arabic, should not be involved in getting this article deleted. We just lack the ability to form a well-balanced opinion on this writer's notability. And as for expressing your personal opinion that "Since he already have an article in Arabic wikipedia, I think that's ok for him.", it is just that: a personal opinion, and not Wikipedia policy. If the writer is notable, he is notable also for the English Wikipedia. One more ref I found is this book review by Al Jazeera. Takeaway (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a page on another language Wikipedia doesn't make a topic notable. For example, people could be discussing the deletion of the Arabic equivalent of this article right now and they might think it is notable since there is an article in English. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that here. All that was said was that the article there had sources. Look at the sources there. - Takeaway (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the subject is notable, linked to an arabic page approved there. It just need improvement in the English Wikipedia. In Google search is shows a lot of results that are not social media.  Karlhard  (talk to me)  00:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Takeaway has found four in-depth sources in Arabic. I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be a transliteration problem. Searching under the English title of one of his books, I find that Library of Congress transliterates his name as Mundhir Qabban̄i -- see the author listing for him and the VIAF listing. (although I do not read Arabic, I do know that "al" is a frequent prefix to names and that the names also need to be searched without it; I also know there's frequent variability in transcribing a arabic letter as either K or Q). I see   his books  have 56 WorldCat library holdings, which is significant for current Arabic fiction in the limited geographic distribution of libraries covered by worldcat . I suggest the article be moved to the LC version as a standard, on the basis of the VIAF record   DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (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.