Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Ayub (2nd nomination)

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) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master Ayub[edit]

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

trivial or promotional references. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is the 1st nomination. There was a database error. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The subject is notable as an educationist and is a recipient of the Pride of Performance, which is a top award. Coverage is found in multiple reliable sources, including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and many more. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [12], [13], [14], [15]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent amount of coverage of this fellow well sourced and reliable sources seems a significant article. Rahulbhr (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)— Rahulbhr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and WP:TROUT - as creator of the article - I didn't get much time to spend on the article and it stayed a stub, however, the subject is quite notable; was awarded a Pride of Performance national award and holds coverage in multiple WP:RS. The subject himself does not have any internet presence nor is he a celebrity so I don't see how it could be "promotional" at all. This article is on a notable figure and the 42 recurring news references that come out just by quick google news search are not the only ones. There's vast coverage in local mainstream TV media as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2015 (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.