Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jassim Haji

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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jassim Haji

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

Non notable. Minor awards only 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Over 30,000 results, quite a lot as he is from Bahrain. OccultZone (Talk) 08:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched for "Jassim Haji" -wikipedia I only got "About 13,900 results", but at any rate, the number of Google results is not evidence of notability. (WP:GHITS)-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your efforts. If I may interject, I have added links to other Wikipedia articles, and I have added an update to the article of Gulf Air and a link to this article, so it is no longer an orphan nor a dead end. Further, if I may be heard about the fate of this article, I’m trying to compare this article with the following Wikipedia articles (Samer Majali, Jassim Mohammed Haji) where they have not been marked for deletion. Can someone please help me understand the difference? Again, thank you all.Wiki man 195 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per OccultZone. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gulf Air, since he seems to be notable only in his position as their IT director.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for multiple incidents. Check Conferences. OccultZone (Talk) 07:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a puff piece article. There is nothing in this article which indicated he passes WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Seems to be an IT director ding his job (so what) and getting some publicity for doing it. scope_creep talk 16:34 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Passes WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk) 16:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any part that serves as a “puff piece” then by all means it should be removed. However, the article lists a series of facts that are supported by references. Since the subject is from the Middle East, so are the references. I would like to bring to your attention that there are other articles that have very references but they were not marked for deletion (Samir Majali,Jassim Mohammed Haji,Jassim Al Kazmawi,Jassim Al Saeedi). Can someone please help me understand the rationale and difference compared to this article so that I can improve it? I have already listed 24 references from wide range of online news sites, local newspapers and magazines. Wiki man 195 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Wiki man 195. This deletion nomination does not relate to the quality of the article, including the number or reliability of any references. The rationale for deletion is that the person who is the subject of the article is not notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. The notability guidelines can be found at WP:N, and since this article is about a person, more specific guidelines can be found at WP:BIO. The other articles you mention may also not reach the required notability, but those articles not being nominated (or indeed also being nominated) do not have a baring on the notability of this article. Andy (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:34, 22 March 2014 (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.