Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idris Tawfiq (3rd nomination)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Tawfiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previously deleted as non-notable. The reliable sourcing I can find amounts to an interview in the Irish Times (here), and a BBC report on a talk he gave in Cambridge once. He doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG; I've looked to see whether his writing might pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I can't find any reviews of either of his books, so it doesn't look like he does. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a combination of WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS. There are a few more mentions of the subject by other sources in relation to his conversion, but not enough for demonstrating WP:GNG/WP:BIO notability. Nothing appears to indicate notability on any other grounds such as WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP and block from recreation. Simply converting to a religion and in and of itself is not wiki worthy. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Conversion by itself is NN and two books about the process does not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass NAUTHOR. Leaning towards a salting as well, considering we're on the third AfD for this subject and there's not indication of notability. --Kbabej (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2021 (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.