Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Fazlul Haq

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fazlul Haq[edit]

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

Geographer who has just received his PhD. References show that there are some publication, but there's nothing indicating he is "well known" as the article states. H-index currently seems to be 1, with a total of 7 citations (5 for the 2011 article, 1 each for two articles from 2014), as per GScholar. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of notability from sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The article has been deleted before, under the name Fazlul haq. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted twice under that name, actually, but both deletions were speedy under criterion A7, so we can't use them as the basis for a G4 (re-creation of deleted material) deletion. And the present article has plausible-enough claims of significance to save it from another A7 deletion, regardless of whether they contribute to actual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining this multiple times through and through is still not finding anything at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic notability (in particular citations too low for WP:PROF#C1) nor general notability. I would suggest salting, but Fazlul Haq appears to be a legitimate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2016 (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.