Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachariah Anani

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachariah Anani

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

Not notable person under wikipedia gidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, [[User:Govindaharihari, nominations are more persuasive when they show evidence of a proper WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Difficult to find reliable sources (most are religious literature, self-published or user content). —Paleo Neonate - 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking HighBeam on toolbar. And Note that "religious" sources are not inherently non-reliable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not significant coverage in reliable sources. As for the Christian propaganda blogs I was refering to before, they are not reliable sources (but those may not be the ones you were justifying). I also respect your keep vote. —Paleo Neonate - 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaleoNeonate, I apologize for commenting on your edit before doing a rudimentary WP:HEYMANN upgrade. Also, it may be the case that you lack access to news archives. I invite you to take another look at article with new sourcing, or to do a news archive search remembering that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just needs sourcing. Subject was rather extensively covered in books and newspapers, However, google's PRESENTISM may blinker some editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN. I did a modest expand/source. Lots more material out there, dude was a bit of a thing on the Danger: Warning! Islam is Bad! speaking circuit, especially around 2006-7. Frankly, this looks like an example of editors bringing articles and voting to delete on apparent WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds; article ought to simply to have been tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I (or somebody) needs to make time to source and add material on assertions that he invented or inflated his role as a terrorist, well after immigrating to the U.S. and allegedly as a career move. Pretty sure that I did see sources on this in an archive search, and will try to get back to improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added such as section; sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a much larger question is: Is this person sufficiently notable? I see nothing in the article as it is now to establish that he deserves an entry in the Wikipedia. That he has made apparently unsubstantiated claims is not enough. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient reliable source that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not appear to have achieved anything significant or worthy of note. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met with the sources already present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would love to keep this article, but I cannot see much of note in it, except the very fact of his conversion, Something that is a rarity as Sharia law prescribes the death penalty for apostacy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (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.