Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Sharif

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. but I'm more than willing to userfy if someone would like it to work on. StarM 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sharif

blatant advertisement written by the subject (yes, I know COI isn't a justification by itself for deletion; however, it does provide a good indication of the author's intent) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 22:13, December 30, 2008
Delete - Fails notability guidelines for people. Matt (Talk) 07:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Wikipediarul e s 2221 08:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I personally believe that a conflict of interest is enough reason to reject an article, as I believe that it is impossible for an article written by its subject to be reliably unbiased. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:BIO. Also approaching snow territory. VX!^~~~ 20:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Approaching? I'd say we've reached WP:SNOW and that has nothing to do with the fact that I nominated this article for AfD. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably userfy, people should be nicer to new users. This is a reasonably neutral bio written by its subject, who appears knowledgable in an area where Wikipedia is not strong. It stresses his notable achievements, which a bio should. Better to extend a helping hand than a bitch slap (excuse my French). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia has polcies and guidelines that this article does not meet. This has nothing to do with "being nice." If we were to follow your suggestion, no article would ever be deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more civil. Aside from the very relevant WP:BITE policy, the AFD guidelines are quite clear: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." You have done none of these things. Your actions do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, either. Given the number of speedy deletions you have had declined in the recent past as clearly inappropriate, and the number of other deletion proposals you have had rejected, you really ought to consider the likelihood that your opinions do not reflect consensus or policy and guidelines rather than continuing to present inappropriate proposals. I do not see why article improvement is inferior to summary deletion of articles from new users. We were all new users once. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please spare me the lecture and the high and mighty attitude. My edit record, including the fact that the majority of my CSD and AfDs have resulted in deletions, speaks for itself. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. Violates WP:ADS. Agree with Gmatsuda; I think WP:SNOW applies now. -- 128.97.245.9 (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2009 (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.