Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Al-Telbany


 * 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. There's a strong suggestion that this is a vanity autobiography, and the distinct concerns over the validity and verifiability of the claimed BBC and CNN coverage cast a further negative light. Should actual, verifiable, significant coverage that can be demonstrably sourced to first-hand copies of reliable sources become available, then the article can be recreated - but until that time the consensus here holds that it is not appropriate for us to continue to host this poorly-sourced and poorly-written autobiography. ~ mazca  talk 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Waleed Al-Telbany

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep The topic does sound notable, however it is disappointing that all the references are copies of original items on facebook. We need the original reference, which if facebook is not a fake, suggests that WP:GNG is met by appearance in several independent refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete blatantly promotional article by an editor with few other areas of interest, carefully crafted to sound notable without actually being so. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep Many bio articles are written by spas, and it does not make them the less notable. But, like Graeme, I would like to see the original references--they do seem to look authentic & would be ver difficult to fake. but I cannot determine if he is referred to in the full text of the articles that show his cartoons; however, it would be reasonable to assume that he is,because why else would his cartoons be chosen to illustrate a general article on the subject?    DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The SPA is the subject. This is a WP:AUTO. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no AFD notice on the article. Someone removing it prematurely it seems.  The references should link directly to the source, not a facebook page.   D r e a m Focus  23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete nothing in gnews, and google shows mainly mirror sites or passing mentions. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: relisting (and watching) because the AfD notice keeps being removed.  Sandstein   07:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to AK Comics? Subject noted there and seems to have some notability though sourcing reliably is a problem. Video I saw looked like substantial coverage though... PicodeGato (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad sources; bad content; single author with a huge conflict of interest. And then there's the repeatedly edit-warred over Chuck Norris facts linking this person to Jean Claude van Damme.  If there's a BBC video about this person, there's no indication as to its existence on the BBC's own WWW site.  Similarly, CNN's own WWW site gives no indication that it has ever reported on this person by this name.  And looking at the magazine scans of dubious provenance supplied, I cannot see this person discussed at all in the actual article prose. Zap this, with no prejudice against a future; properly, reliably, and independently sourced; and not as poorly written; article should one arise in the future.  This is not in any way how biographies should be written, especially when writing about onesself.  Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (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.