Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Nasheed (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 keep. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable person Stonksboi (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stonksboi (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the subject now clearly passes WP:GNG. This was not the case in the past, its very common for an article to be created and deleted multiple times before the topic actually becomes notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject has references from the New York Times, CBS Atlanta,and CNN. Koridas 📣 04:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes WP:GNG, mentionings in US Newspapers like NYT and in CNN+many others, Search for him at Newspapers.com got 167 matches. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per available resources passes GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject is clearly notable. The nominator apparently dislikes the subject or thinks that the subject is controversial, but that is not a reason to delete, but to provide neutral coverage of controversies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can't see how this fails WP:GNG at all. Stonksboi please can you elaborate on your nomination and explain why the sources are not sufficient, in your opinion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is no problem with his notability. The edit history of the article shows an obvious dispute between people who are offended by his viewpoints and others trying to avoid imbalanced coverage of the supposed controversy. That is probably the reason for the neutrality notice at the top. Calling for deletion is probably an act of revenge by someone offended by the man's viewpoints. That can be yelled about (until everyone gets bored and moves on to a newer outrage) in social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 16 February 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.