Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul (2nd nomination)

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 – no prejudice against speedy renomination. Under longstanding practice, articles are not eligible for soft-deletion if they've previously been discussed at AfD. Per WP:NACD, please do not revert this closure: it "may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review." (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Faik Zaghloul

[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)

Essentially an unverified article as the only source is a dead link with no publication details identifying the source or author. I was unable to find sources in a WP:BEFORE search, but granted foreign language sources may exist outside of my expertise in locating. Arguments from the first AFD 13 years ago about future editing don't seem to have panned out in reality. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please let an admin close this AFD, as soft deletion is still an option. While it's true that soft deletion is not an automatic outcome under policy in this case, WP:NOQUORUM explicitly states that in this kind of case soft deletion is one of four possible outcomes at the discretion of a closing administrator.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: "This kind of case" as you refer is not necessarily valid where soft deletion has already been excluded by a relisting administrator (Explicit). You have reverted the NC closes of two editors (myself included). I don't quite get why, as that would not prejudice a renomination. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Bungle, I think you are misinterpreting User:Explicit's comment. WP:NOQUORUM is essentially broken into two kinds of cases. One where there is no controversy and no prior AFD, where soft deletion is the expected outcome. The other, where there has been a prior AFD or there is some sort of controversy about the nomination. In these cases soft deletion is not prohibited/excluded but is one of four possible outcomes at the time of closing per admin discretion. As only admins can soft delete, this close should really only be made by an admin for procedural reasons. As a non-admin, you don't have access to the necessary tools to close with all the available options; hence why this should be an admin close. I am not beholden to any given ruling. I can easily except a no consensus, but I want procedure followed properly. Non-administrative closes shouldn't occur in WP:NOQUORUM circumstances at any point in time. 4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @4meter4: In reality, if soft deletion was an option, I would have thought that either of the two relisting administrators above could and probably would have done so. That they each chose to relist and give a chance for consensus to be reached (which ultimately, hasn't happened), rather than soft deleting, is quite telling. You also don't need to tell me what I do and do not have access to, administratively. FWIW, I can sympathise with your rationale for deletion but Explicit would not have ruled out soft deleting for no reason. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't disagree with that reasoning, my objection is procedural and nothing more (see WP:NACD).4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2021 (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.