Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed

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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed

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

This article: lacks sufficient verifiable references from reliable sources; reads like an advert and a resume; is a conflict of interest because it is a biography by the subject and/or the subject's secretary; and has already been deleted twice as Turki Faisal Rasheed, twice as User:Tfrasheed, and once as Talk:Turki Faisal Rasheed. — Jeff G. ツ 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement created by a WP:SPA in violation of WP:AUTO … just another guy who started another company that is not notable enough to merit its own article … nearly half of the "references" are from the subject's own website, making them self-published sources, which means that they categorically fail the WP:RS requirements … and links that point to unpublished works? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{03:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment. I tried to help the author by editing the article to give it a more encyclopedic style and by adding reliable sources, only to be reverted. The subject may well be notable, with a few paragraphs about the subject in various Arab News articles (and I haven't looked for sources in Arabic) but I really can't be bothered to put any more work here to rescue this if the article's author (the subject's secretary) is going to exert ownership in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I (ukexpat) have tried to help with this one, but to no avail. I think the subject probably is notable, but the article needs to be completely rewritten from a neutral point of view to get rid of the hagiography. Delete and start afresh. Ukexpat editing mobile via 206.53.157.54 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author(s) removed most of the WP:SPS links, but a long list of trivial references is not the same as "substantial coverage" … if you Google search all the instances of my name, you would have an even longer list, with assertions (and WP:RS links to WP:Verify them) that I was "the first to do" some rather impressive things, but I don't presume to meet the WP:BLP requirements, or even WP:GNG … the criteria is quality, not quantity, and a collection of random quotes does not cut it. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (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.