Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salah el-Moncef

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. Secret ^account 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salah el-Moncef

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

Lacks extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also the person has contacted us asking to insert POV material on minor papers which convinces me that he really isn't a notable writer.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage in the article (and what little else I can find) is in some way connected to the subject - in the absence of independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Also nothing to suggest a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails GNG" isn't really an argument -- it's what we're trying to determine here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is one, although it's a bit of an out-there position. Some editors believe that the GNG is the only legitimate notability criterion, and that failing it is sufficient cause for deletion. Ray^Talk 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- varied and somewhat deep holdings of his books determined via Worldcat + a reputable publisher. Not sufficient as a shoo-in without other references, but certainly not an unknown either. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no cause for notability under WP:PROF and WP:BIO, I don't see anything to suggest a pass of WP:AUTHOR either - the highest holding is only 50 libraries for one of his books, with no hint of a review. Gscholar lists precisely 4 citations of said book, 3 of which are from articles by the author, and one of which comes from a long list with no commentary whatsoever. Ray^Talk 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes none of the categories. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2013 (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.