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. A single source is not sufficient to satisfy notability, and the other keep !vote isn't addressing the notability concerns.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Factoring out other people with similar names, I only found single-digit citations for his works in Google Scholar. Does not pass
WP:PROF, and no other notability evident. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. I also couldn't find anything that would pass
WP:PROF or the
WP:GNG. –
Joe (
talk) 09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears notable enough in the area of Pakistani science and tech, see
this 2005 Dawn article for example. Mar4d (
talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:SINGLESOURCE is not enough for passing
WP:GNG. Thanks, Greenbörg(talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Obviously this article needs quite a bit of re-organizing for it's improvement, but I'm not sure if deletion is applicable at this point.--
NadirAli نادر علی (
talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Week delete while there is at least
one article discussing the subject but I don't think this is enough to demonstrate the notablity of the subject. --
Saqib (
talk) 19:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete the subject's
h-index is clearly low for
WP:PROF and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either fails
WP:GNG.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 13:28, 16 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.
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. A single source is not sufficient to satisfy notability, and the other keep !vote isn't addressing the notability concerns.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Factoring out other people with similar names, I only found single-digit citations for his works in Google Scholar. Does not pass
WP:PROF, and no other notability evident. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. I also couldn't find anything that would pass
WP:PROF or the
WP:GNG. –
Joe (
talk) 09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears notable enough in the area of Pakistani science and tech, see
this 2005 Dawn article for example. Mar4d (
talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:SINGLESOURCE is not enough for passing
WP:GNG. Thanks, Greenbörg(talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Obviously this article needs quite a bit of re-organizing for it's improvement, but I'm not sure if deletion is applicable at this point.--
NadirAli نادر علی (
talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Week delete while there is at least
one article discussing the subject but I don't think this is enough to demonstrate the notablity of the subject. --
Saqib (
talk) 19:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete the subject's
h-index is clearly low for
WP:PROF and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either fails
WP:GNG.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 13:28, 16 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.