Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najamuddin Ahmed (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. No policy based arguments for deletion have been offered J04n(talk page) 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Najamuddin Ahmed
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page's creator promised, at the end of the first deletion discussion, to bring reliable sources. That never happened, the page creator has been inactive for almost four years and noone has taken interest in this page. It's a pointless example of original research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion is at Articles for deletion/Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Must be Kept.The Subject is Notable.The time we are utilizing in discussion here in that time we may improve this Article.Msoamu (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone is willing to improve it then that would be great! My whole point is that it's lain as a piece of original research with nobody to tend to it since 2009. I'm just skeptical that it will receive any attention which could support its notability; because it's original research, the subject's actual notability isn't really proven. As I mentioned above, the first deletion discussion resulted in keep based on promises from the article's creator for improvement and that improvement never happened. Is there a way, perhaps, that some sort of a time limit could be set for improvements by which it needs to be kept or just deleted as OR? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 Keep - MezzoMezzo, what was the point of putting in an AfD on a ultra-obvious keep with the supposed motive of alerting WP:ISLAM editors and not even ensuring a WP ISLAM tag was on the article so that it shows up at WP ISLAM/ALERTS? Sorry but it would have taken you less bytes to just post on the project Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I know very little about both such projects and only recently started looking into them in regard to some other articles, so I didn't know there was any relation between an article's nomination for deletion and any affiliated projects. That does add complications to such discussions which I had not previously realized, though.
 * Regarding the previous keep, then my second nomination was based on my reasoning above and my own lack of awareness regarding what you've mentioned here. I still wonder, though, about what happens with articles such as these which appear to be OR even after listing them with various projects? Do they sit indefinitely? Where can I find rules about how this works? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the rule is that there is no deadline for improvements.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 27 February 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.