| Revision as of 23:01, 14 February 2013 editMsoamu (talk | contribs)663 edits Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:49, 16 February 2013 edit undoMezzoMezzo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,113 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::'''Must be Kept'''.The Subject is Notable.The time we are utilizing in discussion here in that time we may improve this Article.] (]) 23:01, 14 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.] (]) 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? ] (]) 12:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:49, 16 February 2013
Najamuddin Ahmed
AfDs for this article:- Najamuddin Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)