Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samir Alamad

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. czar 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Alamad (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)

Draft had been declined 4 times at AfC for very valid reasons. You can see the rationales here, since somehow the editing history of the article has been deleted. Right now this is little more than a glorified CV. Searches turned little more than a few mentions. He's accomplished, but not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - most of the existing sources seem to be significant, reliable and independent of the topic. — TheMagnificentist 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Perhaps he's not very notable, but the subject does have a few indicators that could support inclusion. Coverage begins with mentions in 2014 and another one in 2015; this continues into 2016 and 2017, where coverage becomes relatively more frequent (though, as I must concede, not extremely so). That coverage only includes news articles unconnected to the subject. What I make of that is an individual who honestly wouldn't have been notable enough for inclusion in previous years, but by now, seems to barely make it past the mark. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contributions to Islamic financial scholarship have barely been noticed on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell the coverage in the independent sources cited in the article amounts to passing mentions or quotes from the subject in connection with his work on halal loans. This is not significant coverage of Alamad himself. The one exception is [1], and I don't think a single source meets the WP:GNG. I couldn't find any additional sources or any indication that he passes a SNG. As the nominator put it, he is accomplished but unfortunately not notable. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- clearly WP:TOOSOON; the accomplishments are not significant, neither is the coverage. 100% promo article with content along the lines of:

• "He was also featured in the Move Your Money Campaign as a pioneer of ethical financial products!"

The rest of the article is pretty much the same. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Add: the draft of the article has been declined four (4) times at AfC: link, but was moved to mainspace anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 29 August 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.