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) →B music ian 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article falls under WP:BLP and in this case I believe that it is not following WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP. It appears to be unfairly negatively biased. In addition over half the negative content has either no sources (404's), primary sources (blogs, tabloids etc) or are provided primarily in languages not applicable to the article and can therefore not be verified. Since this is a living person it is my belief that this article may harm him and his business.

In addition, the article references personal data such as date or birth of individuals that due to poor referencing can not be associated with the article as required by WP:BLP.

The wording used in the article is also speculative and does not reflect the referenced sources in a truthful manner.

In short there appears to be several points that does not conform to WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The article has been nominated for deletion in the past and consensus at the time was to keep but update. Since then no significant improvement has been made, instead an edit war appears to have erupted where some editors add poorly referenced information and others are removing it. Due to the nature of this article, referring to a living person, I believe it should be deleted as there has been no interest from anyone in creating an article from a neutral point of view and this may harm the individual(s) applicable to the article.

Sweboi (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is obvious[1], and this is not some private person who shuns coverage--he has his own detailed website with extensive biographical information.[2] Deleting this article would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's purposes. If there's contentious material, WP:BLP has remedies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't disagree with the statement on notability. The discussion about that has been had during a previous deletion discussion and it was established that he is indeed a notable person. My point is that I don't believe that the function of wikipedia is to retain articles at all cost. It is obvious that this article is poorly referenced and that facts are misquoted in relation to the source given. In this case I believe that this will harm the person in question. Are we wikipedians sacrificing morals for the sake of keeping an article? It is obvious by looking at the edit history that there is an edit war going on. In one case an editor is saying "There is speculation that......" clearly that is not the way we are to reference our articles. This article needs to be either edit locked or deleted in my opinion. Sweboi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP or similar articles issues are never valid reasons for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, mostly. ;-) --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and remove most of the really poor writing and PV issues. The man is notable. Collect (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The policy problems (POV/OR/Sourcing) the nominator points out are all valid, and bias is visible in the article edits. I'm sympathetic to the nomination: at the time of this nom it'd been essentially transformed into an attack page (and hadn't been that good beforehand). It's a little-watched biography and seems to be a target for SPAs. The quantity of those who want to add negative material is slightly higher than those seeking to remove it, too. However, the subject is notable. There are steps we can take to handle it better in the future. I've spoken with those adding the problematic material, it's been discussed at the BLP noticeboard and can be taken back there if need be. We can remove problem content, placing ((BLP removal)) & ((Controversial)) on the talk page to alert users to the appropriate standards. And we can semi-protect it—long term if necessary, after the article's been cleaned up to be in keeping with content and living persons policies, to provide an additional layer of protection. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think protecting the page as suggested by the previous poster is a good idea, especially if interest in keeping the article up to a good standard remains low, making it an easy target. I am happy to assist in cleaning it up as good as I can but the topic is not one of my strong points. 81.5.128.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 1 June 2012 (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.