Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM Faruque

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 20:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM Faruque[edit]

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

~~The subject lacks notability for WP:ACADEMIC~~ Divide et Impera (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I normally stay away from AfD debates on academics. However, I am concerned about systemic bias when dealing with a third-world academic whose specialty is cholera. That's not a current mainstream interest, I suspect, of western medicine. Accordingly, I ask that editors who have expertise in evaluating the notability of academics take a careful look at this article. Is this possibly a case where ignore all rules might apply? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to ignore the rules. It passes the rules by miles. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per analysis by Xxanthippe, In ictu oculi, David Eppstein, Nsk92 and Lambiam. Thank you for reassuring me that my "hunch" was well-informed and correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a couple of minutes of casual clicking indicated clearly notable, just a bad attempt at starting an article, not even a ref footer or DEFAULTSORT. Added material from book on superbugs establishing primary notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (suggest move to Shah Faruque.)[reply]
I've moved the article to Shah M. Faruque, which appears to be the form used most often. --Lambiam 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find a GS h-index of 35, excellent for even a highly cited field and a stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1, also appears to pass WP:Prof#C2 and WP:Prof#C3. Incomprehensible nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure of the significance of the TWAS award, but the pass of both WP:PROF#C1 and #C3 appears clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fellow of a national academy of sciences, TWAS award, high citability - certainly enough to WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: The reasons given in the deletion nomination were properly addressed by these edits.--Divide et Impera (talk) 19:04, 28 August 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.