Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamil Sakr (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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Sakr

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

fails WP:BIO. last AfD had far from convincing keep arguments. one argument being all ambassadors are inherently notable which is not true. the 2nd argument is that there exists a lot of arabic coverage. searching his name under gnews in arabic reveals 6 hits, and I'm not sure they even refer to him. keep !voters must establish evidence of actual sources. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I expected there would be at least some coverage about him, but there wasn't. Not notable. VanEman (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are accepted as notable for our purposes if they can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — but they are not granted an automatic presumption of notability just because they existed, if passage of GNG is not explicitly shown to be true. Delete unless somebody can find the necessary level of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all actually convincing of solid notability, nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources necessary to show WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 25 April 2016 (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.