Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishtiaq Hussain (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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ishtiaq Hussain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Originally an autobiography, see user page history of creator of article, all sources are either trivial, unreliable, or connected to the subjected. Only possible good source is the taz.de. So delete for being not-notable.--Loomspicker (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure how there wasn't consensus the first time, but upon inspection what the nom has said about the cited sources is true; perhaps the large number of sources gives the first impression of a well-referenced article. A great deal of those sources fail WP:IRS hardcore, such as the Youtube links. Others are connected to the individual himself or to his think-tank, and the remainder are mostly passing mentions. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG, and the COI conflict with the creator (who only edited this article and a request for page protection for it) does insinuate that the creator's objectivity in regard to his own notability was compromised. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- Assuming the content is true, he is certainly on his way to notability. I norew that the previous AFD was closed following some clear "keep" votes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Article driven by self-promotion and original research. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are things that can be fixed by editing. Do you have a policy-compliant reason for supporting deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (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.