Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam mowafi


 * 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. WP:SNOW Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam mowafi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been back and forth between PROD and speedy nominations, so this is the most appropriate place to determine it's suitability as a subject.

In my opinion, this person is known only for the consumer issues surrounding his company/product, and so falls under WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Strictly "one-off" fame. Nothing that would meet the general requirements for notability.  Favonian (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I cleaned the history to remove unnecessary negative revisions but the restored content fails A7 because of BBC sources (although one editor, who is probably affiliated with the subject, keeps changing the article to a source-free version), so I had tagged it for PROD. It's a case of WP:BLP1E which no further notability except that incident. Regards  So  Why  10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. Might as well be speedied. Pmlineditor      ∞    10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be inclined to delete it as a G7, per "... yr going to remove this so you might as well delete the page because your all fckin assholes!" I suppose it could be questioned whether the deletion request was in "good faith", but the way I see it, the author realizes the article is inappropriate and should be deleted. decltype (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I entertained this thought as well but the author then went on to restore the content again, which means that even if this was a good faith deletion request, we have to assume that they have retracted it. Regards  So Why  12:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete No sources, needs a rewrite, if the opriginal publisher wants a new one, they can cite some more things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (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.