I created this article under my other username. I forgot the username existed and had to register a new one (I'm currently using it). I have no idea if Wikiprofessionals Inc later edited the article, but I'm not associated with the company and I've never even heard of them. I can certify that they played no role in the article's creation. I wrote the article out of personal interest. I have no connection to the subject and I did not receive remuneration of any kind. Wikipro43245 (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed the same user as Wikipro43245 (talk). I created the Wissam Al Mana article and have no affiliation with wikiprofessionals inc. I've never even heard of the company and I wrote the article out of my own personal interest. I did not receive remuneration and have no connection to the article's subject. Qatar1123 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For further information, this article was deleted because a company called Wikiprofessionals, Inc. listed it on their website as one of numerous articles they claimed to have for undisclosed payments. The investigation at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 160#wikiprofessionals inc was followed by a general consensus for deletion of suspect articles at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing. In some instances, Wikiprofessionals was clearly misstating their involvement in the articles listed, including several by established editors that predated the existence of Wikiprofessionals. On this basis, I have no objection to another administrator refunding this article to draft. BD2412T 17:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Seems like no harm, and I have no reason to not believe the editor. I think we should consider what BD2412, has stated above. Wm335td (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion (with no criticism of the deleter implied), unless someone has reason to doubt the veracity of Wikipro/Qatar1123's statement. I can't see the deleted text, but as a participant in the mass AN discussion, I'm not sure draftifying is necessary, unless the deleted material is patently sub-standard. Consensus was to nuke Wikiprofessionals' creations, barring someone else taking them over. In this case, seems it wasn't actually a Wikiprofessionals creation, and someone cares enough to speak up for this article. So, barring a well-founded concern that the article, regardless of its history, couldn't survive an AFD on its own merits, there's no reason to make it jump through more hoops. Martinp (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK to Speedy close per DESiegel below. I'm still not sure Draftification (vs editorial improvement in mainspace and/or evaluation at AFD if someone wanted) was necessary, but it has happened and reasonable discussion is happening there. Martinp (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinp Unless I am badly mistaken, the request at WP:REFUNDspecified that the text be restored as a draft, so i comp0lied. But5 any confirmed user who thinks this or any draft is ready for mainspace may move such draft to mainspace at any time -- Draft is not a jail with AfC as a gatekeeper. Rather it is a sanctuary, a safe zone for things notm yet able to pass all the mainspace standards, but that might in time do so. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted this after a request at WP:REFUND and a comment approving such a move by BD2412 on User talk:BD2412, similar to the comment above. it is now at Draft:Wissam Al Mana. That was at about the same time this DRV was started, which I did not know of until just now. I think the review can be speedy closed as already restored, unless someone objects to my action. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ekkehard Hübschmann – Deletion endorsed; consensus was clear at the AFD and a decision by German Wikipedia is not binding on us Stifle (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
After someone extra made an account to announce the deletion and a very short discussion this article was deleted in 2018. I never thought that the request had any chance. In my opinion a relevant article in German wiki had to be relevant in other wikis too. The article is fulfilling German standards and is similar to the German article. Please correct me if I am wrong and give concrete advises for improvement. PeterBraun74 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can restore it to draft space if you want to work on it, but I don't see anything wrong with the deletion and you haven't given any particular reason for disputing it either. I'd be very surprised if the German Wikipedia really is willing to accept an article where "None of the sources mention this person", according to the nominator (judging from some spot checks this seems to be accurate). Hut 8.5 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you check reputation? -PeterBraun74 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those prove that he exists and once wrote something but that's not sufficient to write an article. You would need to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Hut 8.5 08:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again that link only proves he exists and wrote something once. I have no idea what the standards are on the German Wikipedia, but on the English Wikipedia you need more than that to write an article about someone. See Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 15:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse German wikipedia notability and English wikipedia notability are two separate things. The outcome of that discussion was clear. I wouldn't mind restoring this if a proper draft is written, but I think a straight overturn is out of the question here. SportingFlyerT·C 20:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it, years ago, and I stand by it--the AfD is completely straightforward. The only "weak keep" actually presents no argument whatsoever; "the subject is an academic" is not an argument.
Speaking as an editor, two years after this, the article also is/was bad: essentially it's a resume, with a long list of lectures and projects, none of which we include in such articles, and the INCREDIBLY long biographical section doesn't cite a single secondary source. Sorry, PeterBraun74, but that doesn't cut it here. The German and English articles look like resumes, and I cannot help but wonder whether PeterBraun has a conflict of interest.
I've edited thousands of these biographies, I'm working on one right now, but this one doesn't even suggest notability: if he passes, he should pass either via GNG (and nothing indicates he would--go look in Google News (a few hits, minor) and Google Books (an article cited by someone once or twice)). The article doesn't list any monographs published either, and JSTOR has no hits whatsoever. So, if that AfD were to run again, and I was voting on it (instead of closing a clear consensus), I'd still say no. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest at all? Your future voting or if you wonder wether I have a conflict of interest don't really develope this discussion. -PeterBraun74 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop comparing this to the German wiki and start finding reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject or their work in some depth. And I suggest you follow the guidelines in WP:DECLARE if indeed you have a COI, which I strongly suspect. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as delete. Could not have been closed otherwise. As said above, this did not meet the standards here on en.Wikipedia as it stood when deleted. No objection to a recreation in draft space, or a recreation in article space with multiple additional sources, but I would advise using draft space. If the content is to be undeleted, only into draft space -- it needs too much work and is to much of a CV for article space as it last stood. I agree with Drmies, the comparison with the German version is not helpful here, and additional sources are badly needed for this to be valid here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
