Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yousef Erakat (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 18:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Erakat (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)

Sounds not notable enough with no significant coverage as well. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my previously found sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Passes WP:ENT & WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davey2010: Thanks, but what is the benefit while there is no even one of them in the article? ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you or someone else can add them in :) –Davey2010^Talk 10:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But notability must be shown in the article content, not the AfD. This is your job (I mean whoever wants to keep the article) to improve the article, although some of the above sources are blogs and I am still not sure if the article be notable unless I can see the content within it. You devoted your time to find the sources, so make it complete and add a couple of sentences you think make the article notable please! ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not the job of "whoever wants to keep the article". It's the job of whoever thinks that the article is currently inadequate to improve it on the basis of identified sources rather than demand deletion unless someone else does so. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry had completely forgot to check here!, IP's correct and I couldn't of put it any better, Also I would have no idea where to begin putting them so instead of "creating more harm than good" I'd rather leave it too someone who is far more experienced with adding sources like these, –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – As per Davey2010's findings of WP:MUST. The subject is clearly notable and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2015 (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.