Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashraf Abu Issa

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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Abu Issa

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

Promotional piece, declined A7/G11. The author has left a trail from Mozoon, where the author, Ablbaset, admitted a PAID relationship, and which was the loyalty programme for Blue Salon (created by Rhea.Shetty), which is a subsidiary of Abuissa Holding (created by Ablbaset), owned/founded by Ashraf Abu Issa. This article's opening edit summary reads "Creating a new page for Ashraf Abu Issa in order to build better SEO". This is a blatant PAID advert. Cabayi (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping contributors to article, CactusWriter, SamHolt6, Katio33, Samee, Chrissymad, & Mark the train. Cabayi (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though my only contribution was to tag G11, I still stand by it. This is clearly a TOU violation as UPE and likely could be G5'd, I'm sure.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise my only contribution was a A7/G11 tag. That being said, the article subject lacks any real claim to significance. Yes he is a CEO, but nothing I have seen indicated how he is individually notable as a CEO. His co-founding of a non-notable charity and his inclusion on an obscure regional list/award (Note he won a regional version of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, not the much more significant global award) in my mind does not establish notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im agree with @Cabayi.Katio33 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also I checked Arabic wikipedia. due to he is Arab, if he is famous and notable person, so why he hasnt Arabic one? the biography of all of famous and notable Arab people, has published on Arabic Wikipeia before enwiki.Katio33 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because I was pinged. I made no significant contributions but I did decline the CSD and suggested AFD for the following reasons: The G11 tag had already been declined and addressed once by an experienced editor in good standing. This suggests a disagreement about the article being exclusively promotional -- therefore, the G11 should not have been reapplied but rather the article sent to AFD for discussion. There was some assertion of significance (not notability) as the head of a large retail company who had won a couple of national Qatar awards like Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award -- therefore, the article was suggested to be sent to AFD to discuss the issues (i.e. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:BIO). OTOH, a G5 tag clearly does not apply here without any block, ban or SPI case. And the current issues of SEO and Paid Editing are not covered by CSD, but rather best discussed in a consensus building setting. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address the problems (and despite that a {{UDP}} tag was placed on the article for clean up) and like CactusWriter I don't think these are now valid reasons for AfDing. I mentioned COI on article's talk page and also left some guidelines (including about SEO) on the author's talk page. I also don't think it's a valid criteria to test notability by checking their entry on Arabic Wikipedia. I would lean towards keep for the subject meets GNG. samee converse 10:46, 24 March 2018 (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.