Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Esack

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 listed as copyvio. If someone wants to rewrite an original article on him that asserts his notability, they can use the temp subpage. Kavadi carrier 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farid Esack

Farid Esack (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Run of the mill academic. Most of the article appears to be a copyvio from http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/ducis/civilizations/_esack.html and http://www.quran.org.uk/out.php?LinkID=134, the latter not appearing to be a reliable source. The rest is pure WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, Very Weak This man is by no means a "run of the mill" academic, but the copyright issues are a big problem. And the article is poorly written. Sources? Terrible. POV? Yikes! My preference would be to prune this article alllllll the way down to a stub, because that's all the available source material can justify. I am persuaded that good source material is out there, but someone has to actually go out there and get it before posting the article on Wikipedia. How long will it take? Better still, if someone with good research skills will pledge to work on this article, maybe they can userfy it for some intensive work and then re-post. I would really like to see a good article on this man. Notability is not the only criteria (not that any real evidence of notability has been presented at this time.) Another option is to place this man's name on Requested Articles. OfficeGirl 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio, but notable - crz crztalk 02:13, 9 November 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.