- 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. A Train talk 08:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Zia Mian
- Zia Mian ( | 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. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This very poorly sourced article provides no evidence of passing WP:PROF as a physicist, nor WP:CREATIVE as a filmmaker, nor WP:GNG as a peace activist. And searching elsewhere didn't help: citation counts too low on Google scholar for academic notability, and only the one clickbait asianscientist link about him by someone independent of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs)
- Keep Notable enough with sufficient news coverage per this, and that is without taking into account the huge online footprint of non-news references which are also easily available (see book citations for instance). The subject qualifies for WP:GNG easily. Mar4d ( talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is no argument that there are many sources. That much like WP:ILIKEIT argument than actually showing us that the subject is discussed in detail by multiple sources independent of the subject. Greenbörg (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The articles in the Google search are largely about the subject of disarmament with one-line snippets about something Mian said. Those cites provide no insight to Mian. In passing, I deleted from the article a "reference" to a huffpost blog written by Mian.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for stand alone article and reads like a press release or CV. Kierzek ( talk) 18:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the User:Gaarmyvet that merely namechecking in the RS is not enough. I suggest to delete this poorly sourced bio. -- Saqib ( talk) 19:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for now I've added a template in the talk page to help find more sources. If no results come in the next few weeks, a delete is fine or a suggested draft space.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 23:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as this seems like a resume and has no intrinsic usefulness to the encyclopedia. - NsTaGaTr ( Talk) 15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Actually the sources used are not independent, 3 from his organization (Princeton), one from Amazon, merely his book for sale, the remaining didn't discussed him independently in details. Also as someone said above the article more or less looks like CV with listing of unreferenced Journal papers and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCVs repository. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)*
- Puzzled Can someone explain why [1] doesn't make him pass GNG? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep What I find even more puzzling is why no one has noticed he easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. In my opinion this easily meets WP:GNG, like most the people here I agree the majority of the sources are namechecking, however several are clearly not, and these substantial sources are easily sufficient to pass GNG. He features on several lists of the most important Asian scientists, so I have no issue with the relevance of the subject. Dysklyver 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as WP:AUTHOR; writer / editor of multiple books with substantive reviews. Samples:
- Out of the Nuclear Shadow (Book). Bajpai, Kanti. Critical Asian Studies', Jun 01, 2002; Vol. 34, No. 2, p. 312-315. Reviews the book 'Out of the Nuclear Shadow,' edited by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. more
- UNITED WE STAND. Edwards, Rob. New Scientist, Feb 02, 2002; Vol. 173, No. 2328. Reviews the book 'Out of the Nuclear Shadow,' by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. more
- Substantive body of work to meet Wiki notability criteria.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think these are well-known works. If they were, then they must be critically reviewed and would have article on Wikipedia. There is little coverage in WP:RS and he fails
WP:GNG. Can't pass
WP:AUTHOR for merely publishing the books.
Störm
(talk) 12:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see it this way. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." There's no requirement for the books to have Wiki articles themselves. K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think these are well-known works. If they were, then they must be critically reviewed and would have article on Wikipedia. There is little coverage in WP:RS and he fails
WP:GNG. Can't pass
WP:AUTHOR for merely publishing the books.
Störm
(talk) 12:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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 no consensus. A Train talk 08:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Zia Mian
- Zia Mian ( | 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. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This very poorly sourced article provides no evidence of passing WP:PROF as a physicist, nor WP:CREATIVE as a filmmaker, nor WP:GNG as a peace activist. And searching elsewhere didn't help: citation counts too low on Google scholar for academic notability, and only the one clickbait asianscientist link about him by someone independent of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs)
- Keep Notable enough with sufficient news coverage per this, and that is without taking into account the huge online footprint of non-news references which are also easily available (see book citations for instance). The subject qualifies for WP:GNG easily. Mar4d ( talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is no argument that there are many sources. That much like WP:ILIKEIT argument than actually showing us that the subject is discussed in detail by multiple sources independent of the subject. Greenbörg (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The articles in the Google search are largely about the subject of disarmament with one-line snippets about something Mian said. Those cites provide no insight to Mian. In passing, I deleted from the article a "reference" to a huffpost blog written by Mian.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for stand alone article and reads like a press release or CV. Kierzek ( talk) 18:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the User:Gaarmyvet that merely namechecking in the RS is not enough. I suggest to delete this poorly sourced bio. -- Saqib ( talk) 19:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for now I've added a template in the talk page to help find more sources. If no results come in the next few weeks, a delete is fine or a suggested draft space.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 23:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as this seems like a resume and has no intrinsic usefulness to the encyclopedia. - NsTaGaTr ( Talk) 15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Actually the sources used are not independent, 3 from his organization (Princeton), one from Amazon, merely his book for sale, the remaining didn't discussed him independently in details. Also as someone said above the article more or less looks like CV with listing of unreferenced Journal papers and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCVs repository. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)*
- Puzzled Can someone explain why [1] doesn't make him pass GNG? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep What I find even more puzzling is why no one has noticed he easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. In my opinion this easily meets WP:GNG, like most the people here I agree the majority of the sources are namechecking, however several are clearly not, and these substantial sources are easily sufficient to pass GNG. He features on several lists of the most important Asian scientists, so I have no issue with the relevance of the subject. Dysklyver 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as WP:AUTHOR; writer / editor of multiple books with substantive reviews. Samples:
- Out of the Nuclear Shadow (Book). Bajpai, Kanti. Critical Asian Studies', Jun 01, 2002; Vol. 34, No. 2, p. 312-315. Reviews the book 'Out of the Nuclear Shadow,' edited by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. more
- UNITED WE STAND. Edwards, Rob. New Scientist, Feb 02, 2002; Vol. 173, No. 2328. Reviews the book 'Out of the Nuclear Shadow,' by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. more
- Substantive body of work to meet Wiki notability criteria.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think these are well-known works. If they were, then they must be critically reviewed and would have article on Wikipedia. There is little coverage in WP:RS and he fails
WP:GNG. Can't pass
WP:AUTHOR for merely publishing the books.
Störm
(talk) 12:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see it this way. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." There's no requirement for the books to have Wiki articles themselves. K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think these are well-known works. If they were, then they must be critically reviewed and would have article on Wikipedia. There is little coverage in WP:RS and he fails
WP:GNG. Can't pass
WP:AUTHOR for merely publishing the books.
Störm
(talk) 12:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.