Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nayef bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nayef bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, this info can be given his grandfather's page, Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Egeymi (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I would agree but no sources have been presented that attest to him being Muhammad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud's grandson, so info should not be included there.–Kiwipat (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a source re his lineage... now my question is are other nations Princes denied articles? or is there some bias being shown here.–Kiwipat (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the nom reason. Even if he was the grandson, being a member of the House of Saud might just be enough, although that might still not be article-worthy. — WylieCoyote 06:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being "a royal" is not itself a basis for notability. No evidence that he satisfies WP:BASIC. WWGB (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear evidence is here. Of course Keep. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't wanted to be rude, only to tell what I think is import. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

— 79.243.211.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not a single-purpose account. I've got an account but not able to log in at the moment. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - for the simple reason that an AfD is not the right way to have a possible "redirect" discussion. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. "A decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect" (Guide to deletion). Real end of story. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

— 79.243.202.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The article provides no information other than that he died. This is far from establishing any sort of notability. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should be better of course. But it clearly shows the notability. 79.243.202.33 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only editor supporting retension of the article. I suggest you focus on expanding the article, rather than saying it is a good one.  Because on that basis it is about to be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete unless something that makes him notable is found and added to the article. Being a member of a huge dynasty like Al Saud should not, in and of itself, be considered notable, IMO. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The grandson in the dynastic (male) line of a modern reigning family is notable, ipso facto. Certainly most other such grandsons of modern monarchs have articles here. The argument that he has too many brothers is cultural myopia -- we don't consider that standard in assessing members of Western, Christian dynasties. FactStraight (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He is not the grandson of a person who was a reigning monarch, but the grandson of a brother of a person who was a reigning monarch. I do not think we would recognize this as inherently notable in any culture. There are some royal families where people at this level are called Prince--besides Saudi Arabia, I think it was true of Imperial Russia. We should not be fixated on the title, but on the reality.   I am aware of the need to avoid cultural bias--one of the signs of cultural bias is sticking with a rule based on one culture to another when it is not applicable.  I would limit it to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren. Possibly we might want to stretch it to children of siblings, but no further.  DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The "grandson of a brother of a person who was a reigning monarch" has a British near-equivalent in Charles Armstrong-Jones, the grandson of the sister of the reigning queen. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

— 76.105.101.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the world does this have to do with Christianity? Is there some sort of religious nonsense going on here?  I hope not. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As the great-grandson (direct descendant) of the original monarch Ibn Saud, Nayef was styled His Royal Highness Prince...as opposed to just His Highness, as it is for princes of cadet lines. I think this narrows Saudi royalty quite nicely, and makes him more than just another Saudi prince.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.194.177 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep STRONG KEEP!  He is notable.  But that dreadful stub needs a MAJOR REWRITE.  As a model, and as a figure in the public BEFORE his untimely passing, he is notable.  IMHO, notability is not subjective.  I have seen contestants of Survivor or somebody does like one movie and get a page here, while a long time Real World contestant who branched into radio and starred and produced movies got a delete, merely because MTV wasn't "a high enough network".  Whether you like them, agree with Islam isn't the issue.  The young man was in the public eye before his death and not just as a Saudi royal.  Therefore, KEEP.  Zara Phillips (granddaughter of the British queen), has a page.  So does Princess Beatrice.  Both granddaughters of British royalty.  Don't be subjective.  KEEP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.101.68 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With all due respect and condolence for his family... Nobody supporting retention of the article has come up with anything notable about the subject and, aside from copied headlines, his death was not even reported (in English anyway) anywhere but ArabNews.com. With regard to the existence of other articles that are also arguably non-notable, anyone who hasn't read WP:OTHERSTUFF, please do. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to House of Saud; possible search term but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Redirects are nonsense in my opinion. 79.243.209.214 (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2013 (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.