Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirul waizeen

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. Mkdw ^talk 05:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul waizeen[edit]

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

Unsourced, reads like a resume. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unrefr. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, completely uncited WP:BLP (quite apart from it being clearly a CV). He could be noteworthy, I await the RSes ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - nothing of note —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy because this thing doesn't have a single proper citation and is terribly written. There's also something curious about the three contributing editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a summary of one lecture is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced BLP (and no, Facebook and yer personal Wordpress blog do not count as reliable sources). I must say, with phrases like "charismatic, prominent, famous, fiery, gifted, amazing, great, excellent", this page is a perfect example of WP:PEACOCK. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2016 (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.