Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Abdelwahab Abdelfattah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohamed Abdelwahab Abdelfattah

Mohamed Abdelwahab Abdelfattah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A mindboggling textdump. I'm trying to make sense of this, but he seems to just be a music teacher who did something. >_< Prod removed by anon. JuJube (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - One of the most notable Egyptian (and hence Middle Eastern, as Egypt has the strongest contemporary classical music scene) composers of contemporary classical music under the age of 50. Proposing editor does not seem to know much about this subject. Please improve rather than deleting, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would withdraw the nom if someone were to fix the article so that it doesn't give me a headache just to look at it. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: the thing is, this article had been worked on, painstakingly, for months, and was in quite good shape, sourced, wikified, etc. Where did it go? The current version is not good, so where is the pre-May 30, 2008 version? I would like this question answered promptly, and that (good) version of the article restored. Badagnani (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is very, very disturbing, and needs to be reversed immediately. Why was a very well-sourced page on one of the most notable Egyptian composers of contemporary classical music deleted without any prior discussion? This is very wrong and the editor who did this needs to reverse him- or herself. The version deleted, without discussion, in that edit, was properly sourced and in good shape (unlike the current version). Badagnani (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The version deleted before was primarily written by the subject himself, as is this one. What version do you want restored (to your sandbox, at any rate)? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the subject of the article does appear to have contributed to the article, but I also worked on it quite a bit, as you'll see if you look into the page history. This is an older version of the "good" version. The "good" version did include information about this individual's significance, and in fact included two CDs, numerous published writings, significance in the field of contemporary classical music. I sincerely hope that the deleting editor will not continue to delete articles in such a manner, without any discussion (or even notes to the contributing editors, or relevant WikiProjects) first! That is just very poor Wikipedian practice, as we do need to be mindful of one another's often considerable efforts in our areas of expertise here. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna just withdraw the nom in light of Badagnani's comments and assuming good faith in him as a good Wikipedia editor, although I don't appreciate the idea that I do this willy nilly. JuJube (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Badagnani --Kleinzach 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this courtesy; I don't blame you seeing the state the article is in (after having been recreated following the "good" version's undiscussed deletion earlier today), but take a look at the deleted version and I think you'll see it was fine, and did not merit deletion (let alone with no prior discussion whatsoever). Badagnani (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
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.