Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanzil Haider Usmani

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzil Haider Usmani[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No coverage found, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable chemist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With three publications on groundwater quality that have over 100 citations each, I think he is borderline for WP:PROF#C1. What pushes me to weak delete rather than weak keep is that our article has no sources with enough depth to form the basis of an article, and I couldn't find anything better in searching the internet. Although citation numbers can provide evidence of impact, we can't base an article on numbers alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2020 (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.