Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abidullah Ghazi

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) clpo13_(talk) 09:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abidullah Ghazi

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this and this and unfortunately this article has basically almost stayed the same since November 2008. Pinging past users Epeefleche and HJ Mitchell and also DGG who lists to be notified of these subjects and may some insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Hard to tell. I'm in favor of extended notability to careers like this, which aredifficutl to judge from our usual perspective. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with DGG. This is a bio that can easily slip through the global bias sieve on WP. I tried to clean the article up a bit - for an educator to be on this list is very significant when you look at the other people on there.[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, those above me make fairly compelling arguments. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:53, 11 December 2015 (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.