Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabeh Sager


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rabeh Sager

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article on singer. I cannot find sufficient support in the RSs to reflect wp, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is one English language source that names him as one of a group of top singers boycotting a music festival. There appears to be piles of news coverage in Arabic.  The machine translation from Google makes a real hash of the Arabic translation so it is tough to make out the content but this appears to be coverage about some sort of soccer victory celebration at which he sang.  This appears to cover his appearance at some other big concert.  This really needs an editor proficient in Arabic to deal with the sourcing as English sources appear to be rare.  However, the lone English source, the large number of Google news hits on his name in Arabic, and the two articles I picked out would indicate that sourcing is available to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tx. Good research.  The first Arabic RS ref has 2 sentences that mention him, as you indicate regarding him singing at sports victory celebration.  The second Arabic ref you supply is from an RS, but appears to be a glancing 1-sentence (partially about him) reference.  I'm not certain that these refs added together constitute the significant RS coverage called for under the notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an AFD is to determine if an article is to be kept or deleted. I think those sources, establish that the there is very high likelihood that reliable sources exist to establish notability, and build an article.  The major impediment is that it requires an editor proficient in Arabic to do that work.  That we have far fewer Arabic proficient editors when compared to Star Trek fans is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  —Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My written Arabic comprehension is limited, but this has been listed at the delete sorting for Saudi Arabia. We do have a number of Saudi singers on wp, with coverage in English and non-English sources reflected.  I'm happy for the article to be kept if we can discover evidence of notability within wp's rules.  I just am not certain that our approach, under the guidelines, is to presume that RS sources exist, where we have not been able to uncover them, based on less-than-substantial RS coverage.  That would, IMHO, be like saying -- for non-English-speaking countries, if RS coverage is non-notable but indicates that the subject exists, it is good enough.  I'm not clear that that is the approach we take, though I understand you and/or others may differ.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not presuming that reliable sources exist. My opinion that notability is highly likely in this case is based on the material I mentioned above; material that comes from reliable sources.  When we have a reliable source that names him as a top singer, then I would say it very likely that he has notability.  In other words, those items listed are evidence that notability is likely, and that sources are likely.  We need to be wary of systemic bias.  It's all good and fine to say that it has been deletion sorted for Saudi Arabia, but who is paying attention?  WikiProject Saudi Arabia/Members shows 40 members, but almost none of them appear to be active editors. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood you -- I was focusing on your above statement that "I think those sources, establish that the there is very high likelihood that reliable sources exist to establish notability". That suggested to me that you were in agreement with my thought that the indicated 3 sentences (in 2 sources) were insufficient -- in and of themselves -- to establish the "substantial" coverage in RSs that we need to satisfy wp notability rules.  But I understand that I misinterpreted your statement, and apologize for that.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: For other editors seearching in English, it appears that another transliteration of his name in English is "Rabeh Saqer".  There may be others as well.  Last.fm has him listed with the "q" spelling. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: He is one of the top 10 musicians in Saudi Arabia, I think this article should be expanded not deleted, I added a link of the Arabic Wikipedia Entry for him, I believe the reason he is unknown to anyone outside Saudi Arabia is because he specializes in Saudi type music. -- mo -- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 10:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you provide some source like a profile of him in a newspaper or magazine? I think that would make it an obvious keep. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that it would be helpful if you could supply some substantial RS coverage, meeting our notability requirements. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A passing mention in a single 2002 news article does not suffice. The burden is on the article creators to demonstrate notability through sourcing. If acceptable (primary-coverage) sources are used in the article (not just identified as being somewhere out there, but used in the article), I will then reconsider. Neutralitytalk 06:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment - Here is an article where he is the primary subject. As best as I can tell from machine translation, he is the singer for the music in a TV series.  This is an album review.  All of these things establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Which of those do you consider to be RSs?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All of them as I wouldn't bother posting them if I didn't think they were useful. But in particular, the first one appears to be a publication with an editorial board that is explicitly identified on the web site. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also think that the first, with which I am familiar (Asharq Al-Awsat) is an RS.  The second ref may be an RS (not sure), and says what you indicate, in a 1-sentence mention.  --Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The second source is Okaz. From what I can gather, it is part of a group of papers that isa competitor to Asharq Al-Awsat.  Not sure how reliable this book is, but it indicates it is a major paper.  Only viewable in snippets, but page 277 in this more reliable book again indicates it is a major publication. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that Okaz may be an RS. It mentions the subject in 1 sentence.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 14 June 2011 (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.