Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Radwan

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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Radwan[edit]

[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)

This article doesn't make the case for its own existence. The subject is noted as having been published and quoted in major media, but not themselves being the subject of reporting by that media. A Google News search seems to confirm this. The subject is quoted in snippets in articles that are about other things. BD2412 T 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The person is mentioned in numerous reliable sources in the US including CNBC, The Financial Times, WSJ, etc. These are high profile sources where he is being quoted on the subject as an expert. I note that he is not the main subject of any of these articles and this page needs substantial improvement. My vote is to keep since as per WP:GNG, these qualify as reliable sources, there are 5+ of them, and to qualify for significant coverage the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." CosmicNotes (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think BD2412 is correct here. My searches find nothing that goes beyond the sort of trivial mentions that don't count toward the GNG; interviewing and being interviewed don't move the notability needle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 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.