Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osama Eldawoody


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Osama Eldawoody

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to meet WP:1E Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Who will search for a police informant here, CIA or FBI? They have their own sources. WP is not a directory of police informants who are not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -Delete per nom.--Canyouhearmenow 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete With only one article we clearly fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Googling his name brings up extensive coverage of him from very good sources including the New York Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera and CBS. I'll work on expanding the article. Qwertyzap (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I was somewhat surprised to discover that he is very notable WP:GNG by searching HighBeam. I've added 10 reliable sources spanning 2006 to 2011, which should allow someone to expand it into a nice little article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  18:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Added sources satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG/BASIC demonstrated by addition of sources. Well done.  --j⚛e deckertalk 21:16, 24 August 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.