Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Ghabel


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 10:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahmad Ghabel
This theologist is probably not notable. Only 25 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Ahmad Ghabel". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 2 users, and not since 24 December 2005. This message was generated by a bot. &mdash; Catapult 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, as per nom --Oscarthecat 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no outstanding accomplishments in his field. Ruby 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the bot/nominator hasn't presented any information on search results in Persian, which is undoubtedly more relevant. u p p l a n d 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you? It's not the nominator's place to prove notability, the article needs to present proofs of its existence.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The existence of the person is not in question, and the few Google hits I can read indicate some notability. u p p l a n d 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Existence in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for retention of articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument. I never said it was. u p p l a n d 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A search for his name in Persian gives about 11,900 Google hits, many clearly news sites in Persian. The name gets 32 Google hits (20 unique hits) on BBC's Persian webpages alone.. I don't read Persian and can't tell exactly what these articles say about Ghabel, but I think this indicates notability. I'm sorry, but claiming a certain number of search hits without searching in the most relevant language is misleading (not intentionally, I know, but still). u p p l a n d 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep One Ghit says one does not need to study confused and mentally derailed voodoo practitioners such as Ali Shariati and Ahmad Ghabel. So he must be doing something right.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  11:18, Jan. 25, 2006
 * Keep I added more information. also see Ahmad Qabel -- Sina Kardar 23:46 25 January 2006.


 * 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.