Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muzaffar Iqbal

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Iqbal

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

No assertion of notability within the article, and research doesn't turn up much other than his own publications. Searching shows this subject does not pass WP:BASIC general notability guidelines, nor does he appear to pass WP:AUTHOR: he's neither the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable third parties, nor is he widely cited by peers that I can see. JFHJr (㊟) 00:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have added citations to the article, a new Reception section with a detailed critique of Iqbal's Science and Islam, and a brief account of the war-on-terror controversy around Iqbal that hit the newspapers in 2003, with citations. I suspect that alone would make him notable, but there's more to him than that. Hope you find the article improved now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is now improved and sufficiently referenced. Thanks to Chiswick Chap for his competent work on the article and for the persuasive explanation above. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvements are visible in the article. Mar4d (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newly added sources appear to establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2011 (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.