Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Rafi Mohamed Eshaq

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. → Call me Hahc21 03:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Rafi Mohamed Eshaq[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Googling this person reveals that they exist, but nothing more than that. No evidence provided in the article from reliable secondary sources, and the claim of having "pioneered" "the development of Bachelor and Master of Multimedia Degree Programmes in the country targeted for producing world-class ‘content developers’ in the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), Malaysia over the last 10 years" is not verified, if such a fluffily worded claim could make them notable in the first place. WP:PROF calls for something more than a publication record, and the supposedly notable things listed in the article itself cannot easily be verified and are questionable in their importance. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He exists, but his notability seems to be virtual only. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only tiny impact to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The proper GS link is here: [1]. Still looks short, but shows a fair bit more than the standard link above would have implied.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely enough for WP:Prof#C1 in a well-cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2014 (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.