Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameer Abro
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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ameer Abro
- Ameer Abro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
(Ameerabro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created the article.)
Unreferenced autobiography; notability doesn't meet threshold of WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Probably doesn't meet the WP:BIO threshold, and has WP:COI problems. But the article was tagged with autobiography, notability, and verify on June 5th and then nominated for deletion June 7th. An author ought to be given at least a week to rewrite in response to the tags before being sent to afd. Capmango 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A week from article creation is plenty of time to establish notability. COI issues make me lean towards deleting in any case unless notability is firmly established. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment tagging a newcomers' first article and then sending it to afd 2 days later just doesn't fit very well with WP:DBN IMHO. Saying (in effect) to someone who's most likely not familiar with WP:N or WP:COI "your article is going to disappear in 5 days unless you can fix it to our standards" does not help someone learn to be a better contributor, it just alienates the new people and frightens people from trying to make any contribution at all. Capmango 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sorry Capmango, but I don't understand what you are proposing instead. This is an autobiography of a non-notable person. We get one of these every five minutes (look at special:newpages and odds are you'll see one). You think these kinds of articles shouldn't be deleted? That would be a great day for resume posters, I can assure you. nadav (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am proposing that we don't bite the newbies, that we assume good faith, and that we give the author an opportunity to fix an article, no matter how convinced we may be in advance that the article is unfixable. We are not the ultimate experts on what is and what is not notable, and we should stop acting like we are. Any author should be given a chance to fix COI and establish notability unless it is obvious spam or clearly posted in bad faith. If it means that a non-notable page is up for 10 days instead of 5, it still pays off in the long run because new writers won't always get slammed for their first attempt. Capmango 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It appears then that you are proposing a change in policy and not arguing about the merits of this particular article. I suggest you make this proposal at the talk pages of WP:CSD, WP:DEL, the village pump, or a similar forum. That way more people could sound off about it, since it would be a pretty big change from how speedy deletions are now usually handled. nadav (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was trying to propose that we follow policies and guidelines. The WP:DEL policy states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". What we are doing here is prejudging that this page cannot be improved. Following the spirit of WP:DBN and WP:AGF, it seems reasonable to give the author a chance to respond to the tags. Why do we even bother tagging a page if we don't intend to let the author respond to the tags? Capmango 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- But that's the whole point of an AfD discussion: it allows everyone to make their case. Five days is enough time to offer evidence that there exist secondary sources about him. And when I expressed my opinion that the person is non-notable, I had already checked for English language sources. I didn't find anything longer than a few words about him. Now, there may very well be more info out there, but I think 5 days is enough time to wait for an answer to that question. Also problematic is that if we editors don't have access to the sources, then there will be nothing to include in the article (since it is undesirable that Mr. Abro write the article about himself). nadav (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was trying to propose that we follow policies and guidelines. The WP:DEL policy states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". What we are doing here is prejudging that this page cannot be improved. Following the spirit of WP:DBN and WP:AGF, it seems reasonable to give the author a chance to respond to the tags. Why do we even bother tagging a page if we don't intend to let the author respond to the tags? Capmango 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- It appears then that you are proposing a change in policy and not arguing about the merits of this particular article. I suggest you make this proposal at the talk pages of WP:CSD, WP:DEL, the village pump, or a similar forum. That way more people could sound off about it, since it would be a pretty big change from how speedy deletions are now usually handled. nadav (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete there isn't enough for notability, no matter how long may be allowed for it. DGG 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this example of what Wikipedia is not. — Athaenara ✉ 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, especially lacking serious proof of notability, and violation of autobiography rules. Bearian 20:01, 11 June 2007 (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.
