Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Khaliq (philosopher)

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. Tone 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Khaliq (philosopher)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability guidelines on all fronts, reads like a promotional piece. Charmanderblue (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify, or weak delete per WP:TNT. I believe the WP:PROF#C5 case put forward by Phil Bridger, but almost the entirety of the article is unsourced and unverifiable. I searched for several of the articles listed, and wasn't able to find them. The WorldCat identity appears to be another person of the same name. I could verify some of the books, at least. If kept, I don't see that we can support much more than "Abdul Khaliq is a Pakistani philosopher, who was Iqbal Professor at the University of Punjab" + a list of books. Possibly we could include the Pakistan Philosophical Congress presidency, but I think that would generally require an independent source (I couldn't find one). I'm agnostic on whether that leaves enough of an article to be worthwhile. I'm watching this discussion in case additional sources emerge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stub-ified the page, since most of it appeared to be unsourced biographical material and miscellaneous promotion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2020 (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.