Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Gani Asyik


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Gani Asyik

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, clearly fails WP:N Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Some modest hits in google scholar, but I don't think they demonstrate passing WP:PROF, a google search turns up no evidence of passing WP:N.  The article itself contains no WP:RS to support WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See, many linguists cite him: this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you need to work these into the article if they're so worthwhile... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Pete Hurds analysis of Asyik's modest impact. The four links given by Seulimeung are to a newslist (2x, not a WP:RS), one article citing Asyik, and the index of another journal publishing Asyik. None of this comes even close to establishing notability (even if we would consider the newslist a RS). --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-start and or refactor - no attempt has been made to alert the Indonesian project on this SatuSuro 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no need to alert the Indonesian wiki project. This clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Guy0307 (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if that was applied across Afd there would be a clear misconstruction of what Afd is about - even if it is a snowjob in the eyes of the nominator it makes no allowances for different opinions from project participants to actually see what is happening to their articles - also left similar comment at nominators talk. SatuSuro 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine in a controversial AfD. However, this article even fails WP:CSD. Guy0307 (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. He is at least more accomplished than the article stated prior to the relist – he has a Ph.D. – but that's about all that I can find to say about him, and that's far from enough to pass WP:PROF. As Seulimeung states, one can find citations to his work — this journal article (PDF) is a better example than the forum posts Seulimeung links to — but while it does say good things about his work, there are not enough citations of this type that I can find to demonstrate significant impact per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete because I am wondering whether even this amount of work does not make him notable in as narrow a subject as this. DGG (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  —SatuSuro 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - as there appears to be a consensus from those who have commented here I feel that it is the position of an WP Indonesia editor to be on the record at least to show my usual cynical disbelief in the over-reliance of google checks as having any credibility whatsoever in non english speaking subject areas - and even further when it comes to something like Acehnese (or any region of Indonesia) professionals being deleted with such fervour. If one checks the general state of non english speaking project/subjects areas - it is so easy to wander in and find examples of 'universal' notions of This clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF, - and yet in some cases the individuals or subjects are in fact notable - but not in the broader terms of a universal global sense - what if he happens to be the only academic who is actually doing what he is doing? - I really think that regional/project voices in such debates are drowned out too easily when it comes to these sort of Afd's SatuSuro 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. In addition to the points made above by Pete.Hurd, Crusio and David Eppstein, the subject's most widely held book in libraries, Sistem perulangan bahasa Gayo, is currently in less than 16 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (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.