Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amr ibn Abd al-Wud

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 No consensus, and article was stubbed during the AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:38Z

[edit] Amr ibn Abd al-Wud

Amr ibn Abd al-Wud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article reads like someone copied and pasted it out of a book. It is unencyclopedic and I cannot tell if it is fact or fiction. It needs sections, and introduction, and an overall structure. It needs a total rewrite. Sbrools 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

completing unsuccessful AfD (ended up on the article's talk page), no opinion, procedural addition. SkierRMH 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not nedded for wikipedia. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless completely overhauled and notability/verifiability established. MER-C 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 14:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is heavily POV. I searched for the name on google and couldn't find anything relavent. The person might be notable, but it would need references to some verifiable sources. Tarinth 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per MER-C, the guy is not non-notable, the article stinks Alf photoman 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable. besides, it reads like a novel ... shift to BedTimeStoriesWIKI xCentaur |  talk  12:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  21:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  21:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep sombody had dumped a how lot of copyvio material, that is why the article looked that bad. I removed it and turned it back into the proper stub it was. The person is notable indeed, he was a champion of the 10 000 man army that had surrendered the Muslims during a very well known battle and his troops were the only ones that managed to breach the siege. He was killed by one of the most notable and well known Muslim soldiers, whom eventualy became a Caliph. The battle itself is well known and prominently retold among Muslims when describing this battle. And as shown from the copyvio, there is material to expand this article for anyone having the time. --Striver - talk 14:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment i would also like to point out that this afd' is in fact breaking protocol by not even atempting a simple inquiry on the talk page, much less asking anyone about the person in question, resulting in a Christmas afd that many people missed.--Striver - talk 14:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible Delete unless seriously overhauled and notability is established. Unless someone provides evidence that it is indeed notable, I say delete. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Striver who turned this into a legit stub. Go get more WP:N by WP:RS on this dude and then notify me on my talk page; if I'm awake I'll do the rounds of contacting the people who already voted and asking them to take a second look when notability is established. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; is this guy indepdentently notable? If he's only known for this battle, then it should be in the relevant battle article, not in an article of his own, as he isn't all that notable as far as I can tell. I'd be open to having my mind changed, though. Titanium Dragon 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Striver. I think his comments are strong and valid. --- ALM 14:52, 27 December 2006 (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.