Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif Mohiuddin (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. ✗ plicit  10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Asif Mohiuddin
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Spam biography. Not for wikipedia. Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Bangladesh.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence this is a “spam biography”. Numerous reliable sourcing over a decade. Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shoaib Ahsan II (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the abundance of independent coverage. I suspect the rather puzzling AfD nomination is motivated by personal or political animus. -- MasqueDesRonces (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Thriley and MasqueDesRonces. The nomination does not even have any proper support, unlike the 1st nomination that did at least refer to GNG. This article has a long history of being attacked by vandals (IP addresses and SPAs) who apparently or clearly do not like the subject of the article. The fact that User:Shoaib Ahsan II is an SPA created to "vote" 'Delete' without argument also says a lot. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keepThere is plenty to say about the nominator's motivations but that might slide into personal attacks so I shall refrain. This is a clear case of someone not liking the article's subject for personal reasons and nominating it on that basis. On what evidence is the nom calling this a spam bio? The SPA supporting deletion does not give us a reason and I think a Socking investigation is needed. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't really see a strong argument for why this article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3, as No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. It is self-evidently not spam, so the author’s rationale is wholly erroneous on its face. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3, as No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. It is self-evidently not spam, so the author’s rationale is wholly erroneous on its face. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2022 (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.