Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdelaziz bin Hamad bin Abdullah

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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelaziz bin Hamad bin Abdullah

I A7 deleted this once. When it returned and was again A7 CSD tagged, another admin declined as he is the son-in-law of a sitting head of state. So be it, but I disagree that this confers notability. Notability is not supposed to be inherited, or in this case married into. And nothing else in the article shows any notability at all, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you take a look at the references given ([1] and [2]), you'll see that there's no assertion of notability here. The first link is completely in Arabic, contains an extremely blurry photo of 'Abdullah' and claims that he is almost 600 years old by saying that the birth date was in the 14th century and death date in the 20th. The second link contains possibly a couple of hundred names of 'royalty', with links to five more pages like it. Looks like just a drop in the ocean, so delete as per WP:N. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1367 and 1948 both refer to the year of death. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JulieSpaulding's research and reasoning. In addition, there is no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly NN. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This user has created a number of these barely legible articles containing information which, as much as it can be deciphered, is difficult to verify and is more trouble than it's worth. A number of them have been speedied, though in some cases admins have managed to see claims of notability in one or two of them. They have better eyes than I do. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless he's got a prospect of mounting the throne, he isn't notable. Blueboy 96 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no external references and doesn't turn up anthing on search either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (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.