Talk:Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Saudi Arabia Stub‑class

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

<!-

Who?

Apart from the controversy mentioned here and his being confused with Salih al-Fawzan, is there any other reason for this individual to have his own page? This page mentions that he is a prolific author and then has an empty books section... I think this page should deleted, anyone else? Supertouch (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he is famous and infamous. But, article needs working on. Build up, not knock down. AWT (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be deleted, sources for the slander are memritv videos. I can't say what the man's exact attitude is toward the issues mentioned, but nobody's bothered since 2009 to expand on the stub nor to substantiate the material. Let it go, or do something else, but do something! --Itsameno (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]