Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahir Abbas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, defaulting to keep. Sean William @ 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tahir Abbas
No evidence of any notability, poorly written and lacking sources SefringleTalk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- SefringleTalk 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable. ~ Wikihermit 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not asserted/supported. The article reads one step removed from a CV. The big problem is that no independent sources are cited. Without critical commentary about him to indicate what his peers and the Government (a stint at the Home Office is claimed) think about his work, there's nothing in the article to demonstrate his significance/importance. The notability and verifiability hurdles aren't cleared. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for all reasons stated above. It's not clear whether this is poorly adapted from a CV, or if it's nearly a direct quote from the subject's press packet bio. Either way it's unencyclopedic and poorly written. --Nonstopdrivel 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Poorly written, but probably meets WP:PROF - has several grants as principal investigator [1] which, along with his publications and Directorship of a University Centre are enough for me. However this needs to be asserted and evidenced by references in the article, which needs an encyclopaedic makeover. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - the writing should be improved but that doesn't mean the page should be removed. --Aminz 18:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly notable with over hundred publications.Anwar 19:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep these links from reliable sources (including mentions on BBC news and university websites) indicate notability[2][3][4][5][6][7]. ITAQALLAH 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep "Reader" is, I think, about = Assistant professor, and assistant professors are usually not notable. Whether 100 publics make for notability depends on what they are. In his case there are 7 published journal articles (all in minor journals), 1 published book OK publisher,, 4 books he edited, 4 working papers, 5 chapters in books. The rest are probably opinion pieces in newspapers. I think he makes it., but at least partially due to his journalism. DGG 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. BBC News calls him "a leading thinker on radicalisation". An interview in the Birmingham post (unfortunately not available free online, I think) provides a reliable secondary source. About 74 news articles in Google related to him somehow (most either quoting him, as the BBC article does, or written by him). —David Eppstein 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep if rewritten and sourced. I think this could be made into a reasonable article.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per DGG, David Eppstein, and the (as yet unsourced) assertions to strong notability made in the article. My goodness, I think I'm agreeing with RandomHumanoid on four straight AfDs (wink :). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dare we go for five? :) --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if I ever started commenting on non-Academic AfDs we could probably go for a lot more than that--when it comes to neologisms, List of..., ...in popular culture, I find that I'm remarkably deletionist. It's only here that we
butt headsmatch wits. :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if I ever started commenting on non-Academic AfDs we could probably go for a lot more than that--when it comes to neologisms, List of..., ...in popular culture, I find that I'm remarkably deletionist. It's only here that we
- Dare we go for five? :) --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: per David Eppstein he looks notable enough. --- A. L. M. 09:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: news sources etc. sufficient to pass notability. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Notability not established in the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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.