Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdallah Abu Sheikh (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Consensus is that sufficient sources exist. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Abu Sheikh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication the person is notable other than association with potentially notable company (and company's notability is questionable). UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jordan. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see much change from the version deleted back in October. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the additions by other users. FXBeats21 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, the article looks awful. Needs a lot of copy edits and more material, but sources (barely) meet WP:GNG.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the thorough coverage could support the subject's notoriety. This is not significant for the Wikipedia entry. Nick Jamie2 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He looks notable see [1][2][3][4][5] but needs clean up and additional reference. Princek2019 (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round in light of the sources recently indicated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to Princek2019 for pointing out those sources but I don’t think they help. They are all mostly about his companies rather than him, or they are PR profiles or Forbes guff. Not useful for our purposes. Mccapra (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. While some sources are of the company, many also discuss him as an individual Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [6],[7],[8] and [9] are enough to establish notability. Puvasoca (talk) 6:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. [10] And [11] are good sources itself accordingly and the subject is well sourced and Notable. It meets WP:SIGCOV. It is needed to be added to some more specific categories as someone had already tagged and a little cleanup needed in it. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.