Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akram Habib

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. The nomination has raised suspicion; the other "delete" !vote is WP:JNN, and the intended nominator has agreed to close with this result. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Habib

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. 113.150.100.49 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: Why should the article be deleted? Aren't the references enough? --CaeserKaiser (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nominator of AfD is currently blocked. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete. He may be a controversial figure (I do not know), but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No clear oor specific reason for deletion given, references (accpted in good faith) appear sufficient unless soemone with better access reviews and challenges them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was originally Meatsgains who tagged the article, but for whatever reason the discussion page was not created. Article creator "started" the discussion page with the question to Meatsgains above, then the IP followed up by applying templates and making the page look like a proper discussion page. No objection to a speedy close, but I would have hoped that Meatsgains would chime in here eventually with their justification for the nom. --Finngall ^talk 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry for the delayed response. I was the one who initially nominated the page for WP:AfD for what appeared to be lacking notability and the page's poor references to Facebook, Linkedin, and Youtube. Not sure why the discussion page was not created once I tagged the page but I'm not opposed to closing this as keep given the discussion thus far. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.