Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker abdel munem

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, now that we have reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baker abdel munem[edit]

Autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Contested prod. MER-C 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. This article exists solely to promote the subject. --Cyrus Andiron 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're going to list it for speedy deletion, at least include the article number that applies. For example, in this case you would put this. Also, this not a vote. You need a reason for delete because this is a discussion. Please see WP:PERNOM. --Cyrus Andiron 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM is an essay (read opinion piece), not a policy, procedure, or guideline. Nobody else had commented on the AfD and AFAIC the nominator had successfully made the case for deletion. Nothing more needed to be said to build consensus on the issue. This is not withstanding the fact that someone left off the CSD point they thought applied to the article in question (which last time I checked isn't something which deserves comments which fail to keep a civil tone). -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and blatant demonstration of Geogre's Law. Orderinchaos 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Ph.D.(Engineering),Ph.D.(Economics),Ph.D.(Political Science) Palestine Ambassador to Canada This is certainly worth a discussion. An article about a notable subject written incompetently and sounding like PR justifies only editing; it only justifies deletion if an articles cannot be reasonably made out of it. And certainly not a speedy. The very idea that an ambassador from one nation to another would be incontestably un-notable, and that it would be totally uncontroversial, does not make sense to me. DGG 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The state of the article is quite poor, but that alone is not a reason to delete. I have cleaned up the most obvious problems, so that it is no longer spam or advertisement. With a little more work, any COI issues can also be resolved. (What the hell does "cruft" have to do with this?) His education and diplomatic appointments suggest to me that he is probably notable. A "speedy deletion" in light of that seems, no offense, less than serious. The article has multiple external links which kind of establish notability. An article on an international diplomat hardly falls under WP:VSCA (meant for speedy deletions mostly) and the only real reason offered for deletion, "Wikipedia is not a resume service", has already been mostly corrected. -- Black Falcon 06:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I detest autobiographies and vanity spam on wikipedia, the subject does seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY.--Kathy A. 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Politician, diplomat and author. This would need a serious working over by somebody with knowledge of the subject/experience in writing political bios but I think it passes the standards. It is unfair, in my opinion, to class this as spam simply because it doesn't conform to WP:WPBIO norms. Even it it was spam it could still be turned into something good. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS--Sefringle 09:51, 14 April 2007 (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.