Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonis Ahmar (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 no consensus. So Why 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonis Ahmar[edit]

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

Spend some time finding sources but there is no independent in-depth coverage for him. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 7 indicates WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a later career academics are most often notable. A full professor since 2001 (1 January 2001 to date, professor, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi); two published books; sufficient google cites. If kept, remove the "Teaching positions" section --

it only obscures the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

later career academics are most often notable. What does that mean? And how does it relate to policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per above, and decent coverage in sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in-depth there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Coffman's got a good point, but I can't find any reliable sources to cover him. Jdcomix (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 27 August 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.