Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad kayyam

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. Secret ^account 04:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emad kayyam[edit]

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

An autobiography about a scientist that does not meet either general or academic notability guidelines. The material is original research and as far as I can see also not covered independently of the subject by reliable sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a forum for extensive fringe science diatribes. Syrthiss (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, this article's tone is awful, and it is clearly an autobiography (see page history), but apparently he's notable enough for a spot in commons.^King Jakob _C2 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can upload anything to Commons (within policy) and create a category out of the material. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promotional and unverified. Ducknish (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wowzer. Manages to mangle together astronomy, anatomy and ancient history in a most bizarre manner. What will happen when he gets past A in the alphabet? I presume that these "scientific publications" weren't peer reviewed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of passing WP:BIO or any other notability criteria, which fortunately keeps us from having to examine the verifiability of his research :) Ray^Talk 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't make any credible claims to notability and verifiable sourcing is not provided nor can I find any. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as all above.
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a colorful character is not the same as being notable, and no evidence has yet been turned up that he is notable for being a colorful character. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – SJ + 02:03, 21 March 2013 (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.