Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuh Ha Mim Keller (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. Non-admin closure.  Jujutacular  T · C 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuh Ha Mim Keller
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability is yet to be established and mere passing mention of the subjects name in an article does not suffice Zionlove2 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

— Zionlove2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as notability has yet to be established in over 6 years of listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion may not have been established in the first 5 1/2 years (which, the last time I counted, was not actually over 6 years), but it was established an hour before this nomination was made. I would also note that the nominator's only edits to Wikipedia have been to nominate articles about Islamic subjects for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It looks to me as if there are sufficient sources in the article to support notability - all added a short time before the AfD. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep clearly adequate sourcing for notability. checking the nom's contributions, I think this is a case for what I almost never say, that these  do not appear to be in  good faith.    DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have to ask ourselves whether the sources are "significant coverage" and are "reliable". So far all I have seen is passing mention of the subject in articles that would require "more depth of coverage and quality of the sources" Besides, passing mention in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wiki.Zionlove2 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be quite a bit out there that is not just "passing mention". Presumably "all you have seen" is a result of your not having done your WP:BEFORE research before nominating the article for deletion? I've added a couple more references now (for his books - the content you removed this morning, which you should just have tagged with cn) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above variously. This is not the first case I've seen of Zionlove2 nominating and then posting an unsigned Delete, but you've probably all noticed already. 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Missed me siggy off - sorry. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentDGG seems to have voted twice which is not acceptable. Irrespective of what others may think, this article simply does not meet the notability guidelines that require significant coverage in verifiable sources. If there is material out there then simply add it to the article.Zionlove2 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The history of this discussion appears to show only one contribution by DGG. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  07:11, 17 March 2010 (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.