Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasser Shams Eldden Mohamed

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 delete. Sandstein 20:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Shams Eldden Mohamed[edit]

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

basically fails GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4, as a recreation of Yasser Shams Aldden. The nominator should probably have check the article history before trying to get this article speedied for another reason, as the history showed that the article had already been tagged as a copyvio from Deletionpedia (though with the tag promptly removed by the article "creator"). Of course, anything copied from Deletionpedia is unlikely to be a copyvio - but, seeing that Deletionpedia gets its content from here (and for what reason), WP:G4 is highly likely to apply. My own feeling is that the relevant AfD discussion was possibly thin enough to allow for an appeal to WP:DRV, particularly if an editor had meanwhile identified further potentially reliable sources - but this constitutes a blatant end run around our procedures. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. PWilkinson's rationale is also solid. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 March 2016 (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.