Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyar Jamil

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyar Jamil

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

No evidence person meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Only reference is not independent of the subject. LukeSurl^{t c} 14:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing apparent for any applicable notability, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Inviting DGG for professors notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging by the not very helpful Google translation of the Arabic WP article,he appears to be significant as a writer and scholar. Unfortunately I do not have the language ability to read the sources, nor to look for additional ones, or even prepare a proper bibliography. this is an example of [[WP:Cultural bias}}, where we have difficulty determining notability by our standards for people in other cultures. The proper way to counter it is to be as inclusive as seems practical. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Arabic article cites a few more sources, all in Arabic. One is his own site [1], but the other seem quite reliable and somewhat independent. I don't have the language skills to figure out if the other sources are worth anything, but I suspect they might indeed be, so I am !voting keep as I think there is a reasonable chance he passes GNG— crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If "professor" is used in the European sense, he is almost certainly notable. Unfortunately I also do not read Arabic, so that I cannot judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without proper sourcing (that we can read) we cannot definitively state the subject passes GNG or PROF and I see no reason to presume he does. I encourage Ar-wiki to develop this article and translate material across. Meanwhile, I'm not tripping over myself with foolishness about "cultural bias". I decide based on facts. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 1 June 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.