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. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Salloum[edit]

Abdullah Al-Salloum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Lack of evidence of notability in English. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:NOENG and WP:GNG, which state "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." and "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." respectively, there are very clear guidelines to this matter stating that an English source is - preferred yet not a MUST - to prove a subject's notability. Although there are English sources that could be added BUT they would definitely violate Wikipedia's guidelines as they promote a product of the subject. The author of this deletion discussion mentioned this concern using a WP:PROD earlier, which was "insufficient evidence in English of notability". I responded to him immediately on his Talk Page with my thoughts as they appear above; requesting further clarification on his concerns and suggested machine translation to be of any assistance. However, he has not, yet, gave an answer. Someone else, later, removed WP:PROD and immediately nominated the article for WP:SPEEDY with the "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." as a concern - although, as per WP:PROD guidelines, this is violation of the rules where the article should take its 7 days to be improved and by then can be either deleted or WP:PRODE is removed by an Administrator. Such an action had me improving the article immediately; canceling all my set plans. Hours later another Administrator declined the nomination. That Administrator, who declined the nomination, has definitely gone through the sources to verify whether WP:SPEEDY concerns are valid. If the article MUST have English evidence, would its non-English sources contradict that WP:SPEEDY concerns and pass patrolling? Which guidelines should we follow here to avoid such a waste of time?! Sincerely, --Aaehasa (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG explicitly states that sources do not have to be [...] written in English to qualify. Reliability and depth of sources look fine and have not been disputed. FourViolas (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since nominations usually and essentially still question the notability of the subject, although the "in English" part is flawed, kindly consider the following: 1) For WP:BASIC: Sources #1, #4 through #9 satisfy being "independent sources that have coverage on the subject in addition to his work." 2) For WP:ANYBIO: Sources #1, #4 through #9 may or may not satisfy "2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." 3) For WP:ECONOMIST: Sources #5, #6 and #9 satisfy "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." 4) For WP:AUTHOR: Sources #1, through #4, #7 and #8 satisfy "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention". NOTE: none of the listed sources is passing mentions and sources #2 and #3 are related to the publications, by authorized publishers, of the subject. Thank you. --Aaehasa (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources with rough translation appear to be all right, invalid rationale. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The reason for deletion given was of course totally irrelevant, but there is no actual notability here. It's basically publicity for him, as are the references. DGG ( talk ) 12:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person appears to be a notable subject. After sifting through a number of the references it can be easily seen that this person is influential in Kuwait and most likely seen as an authority on economics and finances for both government and private concerns in these areas. Also, I happened upon an English language source which seems to indicate this person is also influential in the Saudi Kingdom [1].

Normally in a source such as this I would discount a quoted statement as primary sourcing and not independent. However, his thoughts takes up almost one half of the article and focuses on Saudi concerns, as well being and he is chairman of the organization. This indicates relations with the Saudis and also indicates that he is important enough to be substantially quoted. So, the subject is notable by having made, and is still making a significant impact in his field, and he may be somewhat of an innovator.

I am using common sense, and recalling some SNG notability criteria. and not just relying on GNG. I am also taking into account Wikipedia's systematic bias that does occur from time to time. Regarding the references again, I am contrasting these with other AfD biography subjects that I have come across. This person demonstrates substantial and consistent contributions that are matters of substance, based on an academic background. In comparison, there are many others in the western world who do not consistently and substantially contribute in such a manner. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the subject's book, The Currency of Mount Serenity. Notability of either seems marginal, and Wikipedia clearly does not need two articles on these closely related topics. This is typical outcome for an author of just one book (which may or may not be notable, but books are generally more notable than one-time authors, so this seems like a safe bet). The article is almost entirely promotional, so a redirect is a way to go here, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment K.e.coffman 1) Don't you believe redirecting would marginalize other elements/facts brought by sources #9, #6, #5, #2, and #1? 2) Isn't redirecting the book's article to this one, instead, a better option since all sources of the book's article present in here? 3) Can you help specifying the article's element(s) or language that should be changed, improved, or removed to eliminate the "almost entirely promotional" impression – that you're raising – without affecting the essence extracted from sources? I am very up to work on – and would really appreciate – sufficient suggestions. --Aaehasa (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Removed "External links" as they may be disputed to be promotional. Thanks to K.e.coffman for raising that impression. --Aaehasa (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since it has been confirmed that the original premise (lack of English-language sources) is an invalid reason to delete, and this has shaded the entire discussion, I will replace my previous keep vote with another thorough rationale. Following the guidelines in this evaluation:

1) It is very obvious that all the sources pass WP:PROOF and WP:GNG because they are by respected newspapers that have WP articles about them.

2) Let's see whether the subject passes WP:BASIC. In sources #1 and #4 through #9, the subject received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable (as they passed WP:PROOF and WP:GNG), intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Although the depth of coverage is substantial – as speaking of originating new accounting techniques, or of an authored book hitting bestseller on the largest middle-east's online bookstore – multiple independent sources are already combined to demonstrate notability. I can see primary sources were used here – the author's website, another WP article about the book, which shows the book's official website, as well as sources #2, #3 for the published field-related articles on the subject's article – to support content in an article, which already has secondary sources to prove the notability of the subject. Accordingly, it is clear that the subject's passes WP:BASIC.

3) When we look at WP:ANYBIO, I cannot tell whether the subject has made a widely recognized contribution – the new accounting techniques, which had a wide publicity – that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. However, ..

4) I can definitely tell is that these accounting techniques make the person known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, and accordingly pass WP:ECONOMIST. Publicity of such techniques proves the reduction value of some kind of difficulties that have been talked about by the public, as of what is being said by sources.

5) It is given that this subject has published a single book as well as a series of field related articles. For a second let's forget about the new accounting techniques, does publishing a single book make someone notable? Of course not! We might argue depending on the type of book, depth, value, and theories, etc. presented. Everyone can publish a book, but a very few of them hit bestseller, and even fewer receive coverage by reliable sources. Based on that, the subject passes WP:AUTHOR because the subject's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention by hitting bestseller as well is getting coverage for that state.

6) The last thing to look at is the articles that are being published by Al-Qabas, Al-Jarida, and Elaph. I really do not believe such publishers would waste their ink, paper, and reputation by publishing thoughts and ideas of someone that isn't notable or recognized. I am not sure whether this makes the subject's eligible to pass WP:JOURNALIST.

In conclusion, by strictly following WP guidelines, I believe the subject is notable and the article should remain because it passes WP:PROOF, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ECONOMIST, and WP:AUTHOR. However, WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST can be considered too if we're lenient. Thank you. --Aaehasa (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2017 (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.