Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulkifli Abdhir
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Zulkifli Abdhir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject may meet the notability criteria; however, it is written like a wanted poster. Wikipedia is not America's Most Wanted and this article would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Prod removed by article creator. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've rewritten and added references. He's notable as the subject of press coverage over a span of several years[1][2][3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Although the article still needs some work.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, tag with advert template and move along. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 01:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep doesn't seem like spam. Bmusician 09:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. Only Colapeninsula has provided a "keep" rationale that's grounded in policy. Since this is a BLP, more input would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sources present within the article appear to demonstrate notability, thus WP:GNG threshold appears to be met. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2012 (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.