Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zainulabedin Hamdulay

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) - TheMagnificentist 18:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zainulabedin Hamdulay[edit]

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

A cardiac surgeon, whose article is sourced to weirdly promotional newspaper clippings on his own website. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with independent, significant, published reliable coverage dealing substantially with the subject from newspaper clippings Bombay Times, Mid Day (which are counted as a reliable source as per WP:IRS) and other media coverage in mainstream media houses including Hindustan Times, Timesofindia, DNAIndia, Two Circles and list goes on. Alan Hardest (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that we should include sources like Bombay Times, let's be clear about what they say specifically. The first citation points to an article in the Bombay Times that starts as follows: "Dr. Hamdulay Zainulabedin is a young dynamic cardiac surgeon with a strong presence in the happening city of Mumbay. With his optimistic approach and elegance he has brought smiles on faces of many patients." That's not a usable source, by any standard. Mduvekot (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of third party coverage, sourced, etc. Google news has plenty of results. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point of the last reply. Quantity does not equal quality. What kind of coverage Is indicated by your Google search results? We need to know. - Bri (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 18 June 2017 (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.