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. WjBscribe 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahid Azal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

!WP:BIO, !WP:RS, appears to be OR, BLP... Oy. Sources are MySpace page of subject, amazon.com links to self-published (vanity press) books of subject, blogs. By the appearance of the talk page, editors "maintaining" this article either can't, won't or have no interest in improving the article or providing adequate sources. Google returns discussion groups, blogs, amazon.com, and this article. Wysdom 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Editors inability to provide any justification for the article to be kept beyond saying 'he is notable' is a good sign that he is not, especially when combined with the tag removals. Google isn't throwing up much... I don't think this counts for anything, and I am not seeing anything else that could be considered reliable. All of that said, and though it doesn't count for anything, I have heard of this guy, somewhere. I just can't work out where... J Milburn 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levity Maybe he's in your MySpace extended network? ;D Wysdom 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The material is potentially of interest if there were any reliable sources or any third-party commentary. I note from the article Talk page that the lack of proper sources has already been explained to the main article contributors, but nothing useful has happened as a result. Repeated removal of validly-placed tags by one of the contributors (without making any meaningful improvement) does suggest bad faith. EdJohnston 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Poorly sourced means it needs sources, not necessarily deleted. Someone nominated Rock climbing for deletion because it was poorly sourced. This wastes time and resources. There probably are reliable sources, and maybe under his other name, but the subject is rather obscure, so there may be limited web information. I suggest tagging it for clean-up and using Conflict Resolution with the other editors, rather than nominating it for deletion for reasons that require other actions. PS Egads he makes himself look boring, I simply can't bring myself to nominate to keep, although I think the AfD is not well thought out. KP Botany 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Any decision to delete this article is purely and completely politically motivated'''. SecretChiefs3 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be if the article were readable enough that anyone could figure anything about him out by reading the article. Sadly, the article is simply boring, too boring to merit a conspiracy. And, please, when accusing others of political motivations, at least tell us which party we are. Labor? Dems? Fascists? Turn-coats? KP Botany 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My vote to delete, above, is based on my confidence that no-one will be available to find any sources, because there aren't any. Sometimes you are aware that a person or company has a high enough profile that SOMEONE will be able to find sources on the internet if they just dig around a bit. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I would be glad to change my mind if someone adds sources to the article before the close of the AfD. EdJohnston 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I won't be taking that bet. But, still hold out for a party accusation. KP Botany 00:46, 30 April 2007 (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.