Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad A. Agha

Muhammad A. Agha

Muhammad A. Agha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There seems to be no sources indicating the notability of Agha and the entire article seems to be an advert for him. http://www.so.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/presscenter/articles/2011/02/20/-corporate-social-responsibility-in-iraq-brainstorming-meeting-in-erbil-20th-february-2011-.html is the only real source in the article and mentions him by name. The Reuters, http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSnBw115171a+100+BSW20140811?irpc=932, is nothing more than a photograph that has him standing in the background and no mention in the article. The other sources are to Linkedin and so are not really reliable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see the final version of the article. There is no intention to advertise Agha and rather generate a comprehensive profile for him. This is being conducted on the basis of his reference availability with more than 70% of the information provided. The language can be amended to avoid the presentation of adver. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuleyBaker (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I reworked the text and removed photos. Honestly, I do not see the content as not credible or flawed. Neither as adver. It is a well informed platform that is giving 360 degrees information about the individual.

Please REMOVE the DELETION notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuleyBaker (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per the reasons by CambridgeBayWeather: the article doesn't sufficiently demonstrate his WP:Notability, I have restored the deletion discussion template,Sadads (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JuleyBaker. This is an individual who has served in private and public capacities and is clearly an individual that Wiki searches would like to see. The information is credible, with pictures of him with global icons. The flow of information also is appealing.

I suggest to improve the language though.

Certainly a DELETION notice or any sign of controversy on what I see is not fair. As a Wiki user, I'd like to have access to such profiles with high density of data.

Thank you for highlighting this matter to my attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhdalagha (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Impressive fixes. I add my voice to Juley and mhdalagha. Wiki should keep it. Please remove DELETION notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedhammady (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per CBW--Linkedin sources? Really? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The Wikipedia is not your social media site, there are no reliable sources to support the assertion of notability. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. Not sure how long this process might take. But we are not doing the individual fairness by highlighting his profile with a deletion notice. This makes the information look controversial and eventually may cause his unfair publicity. My recommendation is one of three solutions for Wiki to decide upon immediately:

'1. Delete the article * 2. Wiki to apply amendments to meet Wiki guidelines and remove the deletion notice * 3. Wiki to suggest required amendments for the contributors to apply within a deadline or delete the article upon failure to comply'

Please take the above with an urgent consideration for the sake of our integrity as contributors, and for Wiki as a platform and for the individual's own public exposure. Thank you! JuleyBaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.4.61 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I second JuleyBaker Hamedhammady — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JuleyBaker and Hamedhammady. I am in support of any of the above three choice. The current deletion notice should not stay long. Either the notice or the entire article should be removed. Please take action immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhdalagha (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We have processes, policies and procedures, many of which have been ignored in the creation of this article, but FYI, it is likely that this discussion will last seven days. Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete PROD'd this in 2011 and it's not improved in the four years since. Also note copyvios need to be removed and revdel'd if we don't delete this, or permission from the obvious author needs to be put through OTRS permissions. No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC, and even if there was, I'm pretty sure WP:TNT, if not G11, applies. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey @Joe Decker:: a few more delete consensus, and I will snowball it: the authors above are act like meat-puppets, if not sockpuppets. Sadads (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No question, obvious duck is obvious. :) --j⚛e decker^talk 02:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sadads and j⚛e decker

May I seek your insights on how to improve the article towards acceptability? I'm ready to work on it. This would be an excellent exercise. Thank you. JuleyBaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedhammady (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a few links. Hope this is of value.