Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Sa'ad Medhat


 * 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 as not passing WP:PROF and WP:BLP; no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Sa'ad Medhat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is written like his resume, and is definitely advertising, his notability is also questionable. Google search: ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Should have been deleted per my original G11 nomination. Clearly spam/vanity piece. ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I declined the speedy. Article can be stubbed to remove COI/POV issues. The discussion here should focus on notability issues. Tan   |   39  17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Some guy's resume. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Move may be enough publications to pass WP:PROF. Should be moved per Naming conventions (people) to remove his professional title from the article title. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you really want a copy-pasted resume to remain on Wikipedia? Baffling. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but AfD is not for clean-up. It probably means there's enough with which to write an article. I have no interest in doing so, but that's not a reason to delete. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This would require a 100% word-for-word rewrite... oh, and a new title too. A cleaned-up version would be a whole new article, and even on the off chance that someone is up for it, there's no reason to keep the resume in history.  Wikipedia is not C:/My_Documents  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There. Now it's not a resume anymore. This conversation should be focusing on notability, not material that is easily deleted and sourced. Tan   |   39  19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep it would require gutting, which I was going to do, but someone beat me to it. Now just needs expansion. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the publications found by TravellingCarithe Busy Bee have hardly or never been cited (the most cited article has 5 citations). That's not even close to being notable. Unless the claim that this person single-handedly founded a new university can be substantiated, I don't see any evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment so far what I've found seems to suggest the program he founded is what may be notable. I haven't had too much time to dig. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Travellingcari's findings. I added a source (a bad one, but it was the first I came across). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Hi. I'm the author of the original. So, obviously, I'm for keeping. I can understand that some may find the promotion of vocatonal skills in the UK (and beyond) somewhat esoteric. But the numbers of people involved and the amount of money make Sa'ad's work notable. He is widley quoted in the press and consulted by policy-makers and so his career is an important piece of information that many should be able to source from Wikipedia. As for doubts about him establishing Dubai University, this is well documented and recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weottelescope (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a CV. --Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's nice that the author asserts accessibility of references, but I'm not seeing anything in the article to justify keeping it. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (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.