Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid

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. bd2412 T 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No sources are provided Agaba Perez (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. The article may well be about a notable person but it is clear from the text that it has been created to promote the article's subject. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Meets CSD#G11. Promotional content for sure. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteblatant advertising. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As G11. Pure promotion. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy declined. The article has been rewritten since it was nominated and now has independent references. I am not willing to delete the article in its current form on grounds of G11, which is the only rationale people have offered so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a resume. Avoiding G11 isn't a quick-and-dirty job of removing puffery; it's a fundamental matter of the understanding of the purpose an article is serving. The author of the article, even in its amended form, is abusing wikipedia by using it to host a one-sided explanation of all the wonderful positions and accomplishments of this bloke. Clear G11 even with the obvious puffery gone. Everyone above who said "speedy delete" understood that. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irreparably promotional. Also, none of the independent refs mention the article subject as more than a namedrop, and some of them not even that much. —Cryptic 06:05, 29 June 2019 (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.