Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Nasheed (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) – Davey 2010 Talk 18:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ENT, he's probably more known for being a racial activist known for having sentiments that most deem "racist" instead of things he's listed as in his article,not like that even matters cause he still fails notability for the things he's listed as. Jukitzk (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , and  who participated in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous various sources, most reliable and well known. Absolutely meets WP:N. FWIW, this looks like a POV nomination The term "racial activist" stands out. Tapered (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The individual's media coverage has grown significantly since the deletion 6 years ago. WP:GNG and WP:BIO is now easily met. One does not need to like his views to see that inclusion criteria for a person (no matter that person's views) are met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * and also... he MEETS WP:AUTHOR, as his being a New York Times Best Selling Author is a decent notability attribute, no matter his personal politics. See AALBC here.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep-Although some of the references in the ref section seem to be very long descriptions! Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (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.