Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah S. Al-Salloum

Abdullah S. Al-Salloum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The sources cited are articles written by him but there does not appear to be any independent coverage where he is the subject. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of indepdent 3rd party sources about him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject clearly meets the criteria for notability. WP:BASIC: "The subject is presumed notable if he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This can be seen here, here, here and here. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". This primary source proves what this secondary source says. WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The subject has contributed in his field of Economics with the accounting tool discussed on his page that has had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers. WP:NACADEMICS: The subject is considered as researcher in the field of economics, whose scholars, under “Recent Publications” are published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions. Translating them gives economic analysis that is based on the subject’s own thoughts and ideas that bring up conclusions, suggestions and advices. The subject is also listed in the Arabic Wikipedia here, meeting its notability criteria, with the same content and given primary and secondary sources.Juffran (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)— Juffran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over, perhaps. Every citations is non-English...many appear to be website ephemera, but it's impossible to tell. Yes, I know about WP:NOENG, but there's no logical justification for having an article for which the typical reader cannot read/check/follow-up on the sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete machine translation suffices to inspect these sources for non-Arabic readers. Reference #1 is a web forum and #3 is some documents someone uploaded to a file share service, and can be disregarded. It's plain that everything else is either merely links to things the author has written (refs 4,5,6); a quip in an interview (ref 7); articles about Ponzi schemes that don't mention this author (refs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); or information about a particular financial calculator website (13, 14, 15). None of which meets notability requirements. Notwithstanding the efficacy of the translation, the article is missing basic biographic information that would help validate the creator's research, such as subject's education or employment. Incidentally this and this suggest that one of the article's contributors is playing games with his/her identity. - Bri (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely trivialising those sources because you do not fully know their reliability is clearly an unfair thing to do. Ignoring the fact that the subject has made researches that have had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers also shows that the research you have done is not in-depth. The subject has had several of his scholars, under “Recent Publications”, published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions.Juffran (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that those who have voted for the article to be deleted are clearly doing so because they do not understand the language the sources are written in. Like the commenter above me has clearly stated, what he did was a machine translation. How can one know the reliability of a source from a machine translation?Juffran (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]