Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arezki Daoud

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. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arezki Daoud[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher of recently (1996) created online newspaper. Sources are a blog and his corporate websites. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep for now. Article was just created, Jan 25. Needs lots of work, yet there is the one reliable source, North African Journal. I don't know much on the region, but the source seems reliable. If I am shown otherwise I can change my vote. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is the editor of the North African Journal and owns it with his corporation. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Great vetting process guys. I am surprised of the quality of the editing. Good job. I agree with WildHorsesPulled.. more work needed. So I added references from academic (Global Journalist, Missouri School of Journalism/Freedom House), Think Tanks (Center for Strategic and International Studies), media references have been embeded in the edit, though not sure they fully meet publishing guidelines. The North Africa Journal has 14 years of Daoud's writing but I probably cannot share given your guidelines? Is there anything specific that needs to be added? I am looking at this entry, should we post an exact replica of this: Dave Edge. Would this format satisfy your requirements? The personal blog can be removed, but the Journal's site is critical. MBsianz, North Africa Journal is not a corporation. A corporation is a specific legal status that does not apply to The North Africa Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeni (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Folks.. how do we move forward now? Is this deletion note perpetual? I mean are all entry targted by one editor doomed to never make it? Please let us what's missing here and we will supply. Otherwise, please make a speedy decision. If you don;t like, we have delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeni (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a week is usually allowed for discussion about the possible deletion an article. At the end of that time, someone who was not part of the discussion will review the discussion and decide if a consensus was reached. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - does not begin to show verifiable references. With the exception of one interview, all the references are either from a source owned by or the article is written by Daoud himself. Comparing this to the David Wedge article is apples and oranges - the references for Wedge are all from independent, reliable sources. If the article can be reworked to show that type of sources, it may be sufficiently notable to keep. (GregJackP (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (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.