Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sami A. Aldeeb


 * 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, default to keep. --Wafulz 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sami A. Aldeeb

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Article about a non notable lawyer. -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep High google hit, now the article looks already better but it still needs more clean up and references. -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, could be anyone. Probably not a real person Keep, as bought to my attention by Alf below, the page just needs a serious makeover.Fethroesforia 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment is a real person see here Alf Photoman  22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a real person doesn't make him notable engouh to be on wikipedia. -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the article is completely unsourced and in dire need of work. Under present circumstances it would fail WP:A, WP:BIO and WP:ATT . On the other hand the article does not do justice to the subject either. Alf Photoman  23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment When I looked at the article, it was sourced in the sense that it includes a link to the man's personal webpage, which at least on cursory review appears to verify the information in the article.  This is at least sufficiently sourced that one need not worry that the guy is going to be angry with Wikipedia for passing on misinformation about him.  Also, while I don't have time to go looking for third-party verification right now, what about WP:PROF?  He certainly seems to be well-published in English and French.  Crypticfirefly 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  11:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete no reliable sources are provided to prove notability.--Sefringle 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Penwhale


 * Weak keep, article needs wikified. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure of WP:BIO - it lacks the basic third-party RS necessary.  Tewfik Talk 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be inclined to keep if the journals indeed can be verified to be notable,  Tewfik Talk 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. There is a clear claim of notability here under WP:PROF, and based on the information available about this person, it seems likely that that can be verified with third party sources. Crypticfirefly 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not know very much about French academic publishers, but I recognize some of them as well known and reputable. I notice also 7 books in Arabic, though I cannot tell if they are translations. His career as a human rights lawyer seems notable as well. DGG 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete fails notability--Sefringle 03:32, 27 March 2007 (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.