Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naeem mohaiemen


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Naeem mohaiemen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Autobiography. Would speedy but not unambiguous. Author/subject removed the prod, but has not engaged in discussion. Though the writer/subject has endeavoured to footnote extensively, the core COI concerns make it inapproppriate. While the artist appears to me to most likely be notable, someone else will have write the article. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - references and Google establish notability; article could do with a rewrite, but being autobiography is not grounds for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTO: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community." WP:YOURSELF: "Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged." -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but now we have the article, and the subject seems notable: per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- seems to meet notability guidelines. And as has been pointed out, while autobiographies are discouraged (excuse me strongly discouraged), that in and of itself is not grounds for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies - Was not aware of the regulation on editing one's own entry. I have edited Bangladesh related history entries in past, but there these issues don't come up there obviously. Wasn't aware of this talk thread until just now. Prod was also removed inadvertently (did not realize it had to stay in). If entry needs to be deleted to keep with Wiki guidelines, I accept that decision and maybe someone else can write an entry in the future? Would it be better if someone else wrote an entry, so that this AutoBio issue does not hang over this entry? Please advise. Mohaiemen (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the various links above, including those on conflict of Interest and autobiographies. If there is consensus to keep the article, you will need to limit your participation to the talk page of the article, except in simple cases such as reverting vandalism. If it is deleted, there is nothing preventing someone unconnected to you from creating the article at a future date. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - are any of the people who want to keep this article willing to take the responsibility of overhauling and monitoring it? -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Passes notability criteria, autobio aspects can be solved through normal editing. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename so as to correct capitalisation and Keep per Spaceman Spiff.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (by a "keep" !voter in reply to nominator's question above): The reasons why autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged are that they are likely to be (a) about someone non-notable, if no-one else thought him worth writing about, (b) to be POV and promotional in tone, (c) to be inadequately sourced and OR, because the subject is writing from his own knowledge. Those are the possible reasons for deletion, rather than just the fact of being an autobiography, and IMO none of them applies here, so the encyclopedia is better with this article than without. It could be spruced up and rewritten to meet MoS and GA standards, but I can argue for "keep" without undertaking to do that. JohnCD (talk) 09:18, 19 August 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.