Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Jameel

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 no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Jameel

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

Article appears promotional in its nature and tone. No notability as per WP:SCHOLAR is asserted either in the article or its sole reference, a promotional website. Article's author has also vanished from Wikipedia.Ad Orientem (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that an author of the article is no longer editing (as of a month ago) is not itself evidence of shenanigans, nor does it change whether a subject is notable or not. That said.... boy, this is a mess of an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep.Delljvc (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resonse Any rational behind your keep? I am open to any suggestion that I missed something that meets Wiki notability standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP with no sources to back it up. The only ref is a link to a blog and some videos of an unrelated person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pointless nomination. If it's promotional, then fix, why an AfD instead? He is a very famous, notable and heard scholar. The article should be definitely kept. Fai zan 10:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:39, 18 June 2013 (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.