Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Gafoor M.A., D.Litt , Irayarul Kavimani


 * 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Gafoor M.A., D.Litt, Irayarul Kavimani
I cannot trace a reference to Irayarul Kavimani and I haven't found Abdul Gafoor in the context of a Tamil scholar rather than a Mosque. Can anyone help further? BlueValour 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was only created 2 days ago! therefore we must allow room for ORGANIC EXPANSION also I forget the rule but aren't we meant to give new articles time? In the next couple of days (if verifiable) I will expand myself! -- Librarianofages 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - there was actually a case for speedy so 5 extra days are being allowed :-) When an article is created it is incumbant on the author to establish notability. Notwithstanding that, I have carried out my own research and would not have brought the article here if I could have found grounds for notability. BlueValour 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You haven't even stubified, what makes you think that you're the be all and end all of researching everything from Scholars to TV stations? -- Librarianofages 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - You've lost me on the second part of your comment - I do not claim to be an expert. On the TV station the article itself implies it may not launch and here the point I made is that I make some enquires even if the article doesn't establish notability. I cannot see what you object to in that. Bear in mind an AfD allows 5 days for discussion/expansion. Good point on stub - I have stubbified and categorized. BlueValour 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or speedy delete: It's a clear A7 again: no claims for importance.  Being a scholar is good, but it is not encyclopedic.  Further, the article has to provide the verification.  "Organic expansion" is not an argument: it's a wish.  Geogre 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete it seems difficult to verify. Article also needs to explain why he was notable.  Will reconsider if expanded.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now and expand. There are some hits for him on Google Scholar, though not all of them are relevant (but about half are). I'll change my mind if this doesn't get expanded. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly common name and I wonder about many of those hits. For example, this Abdul Gafoor is notable and should have an article but I think he's a different person.  I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep expand it or delete it. his works must be known to the general public or scholars in Tamil Nadu. --Ageo020 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment His works notability need to be verified by someone who can read Tamil or Arabic (the most likely language for translation), obviously whichever language his books are written in will be the language they're primarily discussed in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Ste4k 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just too unimportant a figure. Jonswift 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if no notability is asserted till time of closing. I will reconsider otherwise. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no-one seems interested in adding any notability to the article. BlueValour 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.