Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After a declined speedy and prod, it would seem that this article still does not meet the minimum threshold of WP:GNG. The Saudi royal family has hundreds of members and membership in that family alone does not confer notability. EricSerge (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the Saudi family has thousands (not hundreds) of royals. Wikipedia estimates the number to be 15,000, but it could be higher (see House of Saud).Indigosails (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete IIRC this is an article requested by the gentleman about whom the article is written, putting his employee in a very difficult position. Notability, unlike royalty, is not inherited. This gentleman lacks notability in any encyclopaedic sense. If and when he gains genuine notability he may have an article here, but not until then. Fiddle   Faddle  10:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete In Arab culture, paternal lines are very important. I lived in Saudi as a westerner for some time.  But absent notability in his own right, this prince is stretching his ties to Abdulaziz Al-Saud a bit too far.  If the article were rewritten to make relevant his notability, as opposed to his nobility, then i would encourage reconsideration.  But the article just isn't written very well and should be deleted as is.Indigosails (talk) 20:31, 1 October 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.