Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hafeez (chemist)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. As mentioned in the last relisting comment, there is a clear keep, and it has only become stronger since the relisting. It is true that additional sources are necessary, however that is a maintenance process, and as

AfD is not for cleanup this is no longer a subject for AfD. The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Abdul Hafeez (chemist)

Abdul Hafeez (chemist) (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)

No in-depth coverage in

WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please, familiarize yourself with
WP:V because no article can pass GNG with namecheck or single source discussing him. Greenbörg (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I can Agree with User:Greenbörg. Delete this until someone demonstrate that the subject is indeed worthy enough to merit a bio on WP. --Saqib (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is a local story; trivial, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generally we do not base articles on opinion pieces. When they call the person covered "unsung" and related un statements, it seems fair to saying they are unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Although the July article was in the Opinion section of the magazine[Dr. Abdul Hafeez - the unsung, uncared and unused scientist of Pakistan, Defence Journal (Pakistan), July 2000], the June 2000 article was a secondary cover story[1]. Unless Defence Journal isn't reliable, it seems that this individual passes WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. One issue is that the two references are not independent of each other, and thus the article doesn't clearly overcome WP:NPOV. But from what I see, the subject seems suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sources establish sufficient notability. The subject is long dead, so there's no promotionalism concerns. An acceptable article at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I failed to find coverage in multiple sources discussing him in detail. He is dead but still no one noted his death. Delete for me again. Greenbörg (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that given there are a sufficient set of sources in English for
    WP:GNG. No-one has bothered to do a search in his own language, based on his name in Urdu script or searched in Pakistani sources. This is a clear keep. Indeed a cursory search for "عبدالحفیظ" shows a number of things which are probably good sources, I don't have the time or inclination to search for sources in a language I don't know so I will leave this to someone who doesn’t need to use google translate. Dysklyver 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion - as above Pakistani translators may be needed to investigate international sources. I do understand there is a clear keep however, further sources are needed to affirm notability. One source IMO isn't enough
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because POF, which he founded, seems notable to warrant the inclusion of its founder. Nuke (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for more sources. Clearly identified as leading weapon scientist in
    WP:RS and many more non-English sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 28 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Hafeez_(chemist)&oldid=1137534373"