Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ammar Nakshawani

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) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Nakshawani[edit]

Unreferenced biographical entry with no attempt to establish notability despite being tagged as unsourced for nearly two years. Notability tag was in place for a year and was removed at some point with no explanation. Plus notability is not inherited. Mfield (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PEOPLE. This person is not notable because he or she has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ThePointblank (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be little more than a vanity page. Dman727 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything here which claims notability. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page with no reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced vanity page. However I hope we will get some comments on this from those who watch the Islam AFD list, and should know if he is in fact notable. The article certainly suggests that he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment it helps get reasonable comments when the nomination specifies the subject field and notifies appropriate people. The subject is a lecturer on Islamic subjects working for a UK Ph.D. He apparently lectures in Arabic to Islamic groups. I notice that earlier version of t he article such as [1] have much fuller information. This does not mean I think the article defensible unless such things as comments about him from UK arabic news sources were added, but I wouldn't expect to find much in any sources i could understand. I would have expected the nom to contact the relevant workgroup before bringing it here, & other major contributors besides the originator of the article. DGG (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions of the article contain more information, but all that information has been removed as baseless peacock claims or controversial claims with no place in a biographical article. No attempt has been made in the intervening time to replace any of this information with anything cited. I am no expert in Islamic teaching and listing this here will bring it to the attention of those that are. I would also have expected at least one editor who has this on their watchlist to have done something bout the issues if there were anything to be done. Mfield (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (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.