Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

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. lifebaka++ 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

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

The first section have no sources at all. The second section cites 4 businesses not backed up by any sources at all. The section Private Life have no sources.

Under fortune the sentence "This valuation might be based on a mistake in name with a different company called Al Jaber Group in the UAE which has nothing to do with Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber." is speculative and has no sources.

The general tone of this page is very negative. A quick search on the Internet reveals several positive notes about this individuals, none of which are mentioned.

There are also links to sources that are "404"'s.

I feel this may be against the BIO guidelines and the the unreferenced nature of several points may very well harm the individual.

Looking at the edit history I also get the feeling that the authors may be biased.

Notices has been present for lack of citations/verification needed as well as Advertisement for some time and it appears that no one is interested in ensuring that this article has encyclopaedic value.

I therefore think this article should be deleted unless cleaned up. Sweboi (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber is a really notable businessman/investor [1], according to the Times of India he was the second richest Arab (in 2009). The article needs clean up and competent editing, not deletion. I've removed some of the unreferenced claims. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't dispute the fact that the person in the article may be notable. My issue here is that the content is biased. A quick google search will show that he has a number of successful business ventures; the article does however not reflect that. There are also speculations that are not substantiated. The article appears to be in breach of WP:BIO:NPOV and WP:BIO:V. Looking at the history it is clear that a small number of contributors have added a large number of negative information, none of which have added any of the numerous positive aspects that are freely available online. This in fact makes it biased. The article has been tagged as such for a substantial amount on time. I do agree that essentially the article should be cleaned up and that it would have value if that would have been done. However the question is: "How long do we let biographies of living persons remain on wikipedia before they are deleted when it is clear that no one has an interest in keeping it properly updated, cited and unbiased? This may harm individuals and it will also effectively make wikipedia a "gossip board" rather than an encyclopaedia. I still feel deletion is the best option since this article is effectively abandoned by authors willing to provide good unbiased content. Sweboi (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit here, and this is probably the greatest advantage of Wikipedia. However, this concept (open editing) brings a big risk of pushing incorrect or biased information, which is really dangerous, particularly in relation to living individuals. Currently, we have 3,500,000 articles. How many editors watch the pages? I'm sure the number is insufficient for professional maintenance of this project. I'm not sure whether this forum is the best venue for resolving such a complicated question. I can comment only on this particular article, and it is in my opinion notable enough for Wikipedia. The article may be biased, but it is fixable. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe so, but if no one is willing to do it then any individual in an entry may suffer including his/her business and that is not the aim of the Wikipedia project. Therefore I still think it should be removed or blanked until such a time as it is sorted. Regardless of the number of articles here we should address the ones we pick up on, we can't ignore one on the basis that there may be multiple others that are incorrect as well. This is about this particular article, once others are found they will have to be dealt with in the same manner. Sweboi (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notable individual on Forbes list of billionaires. Sourcing or NPOV issues in the article is not reason for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- seems to be cleaned, help to improve! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimOnly (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 February 2011 (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.