Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Shaker Almraqbi

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The result was Speedy keep withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Shaker Almraqbi[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Internet search reveals no independent sources. Septrillion (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN as I said when contesting WP:PROD deletion. We have a source confirming that he is a government minister. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, easily meets WP:NPOL as a government minister. I can also see sufficient coverage in WP:RS using the romanized spelling "Mohamed Shaker El-Markabi", which this should be moved to after the AFD. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This definitely needs cleanup to properly comply with Wikipedia's tone and structure and sourcing requirements, but he does have a strong notability claim under WP:NPOL as a government minister, and he does have the reliable source coverage to carry it. It is entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a topic that should rightly be in Wikipedia if the article is cleaned up — so if an article falls in that bucket, then we keep it and just flag it for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, and hope someone takes the time to build a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 6 May 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.