Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayman Sawaf

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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Sawaf

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Has many claims of notability, but all the references are self generated and cannot find any SIGCOV. Rogermx (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Opens with puffy-language (a visionary), but would seem to be notable. No in-line citations to support keeping the article, would need a rework before keeping. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:BEFORE yields 1 2 3 4 Article needs to be rewritten; WP:PEACOCK needs to be reined in. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Meliora: what does that Google Scholar link show? All those items seem unrelated. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ysangkok Citations of his book. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although it's puffy, seems notable Balle010 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Passes WP:BASIC Sliekid (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, books are self-published, references are not reliable with no in-depth research. Not enough meat for a BLP that isn't just a list of links. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2020 (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.