Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rezwan Razack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rezwan Razack[edit]

Rezwan Razack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement. Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Linkedin is not a reliable reference. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors—of which subject is the co-author—or the Prestige Group—of which the subject is a member. Subject is also founder of Museum of Indian Paper Money, which has a fair amount of coverage and may be notable on its own. Notability is not inherited through these, but the topics are fairly closely related to the subject. The subject also appears to be a researcher and expert in field of Indian banknotes. I've added some references (including one from the BBC) that seem to touch upon the subject more directly; I don't know enough about them to know if they are all reliable sources and article could use a copyedit to better incorporate them. —Ost (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:53, 19 September 2021 (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.