Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akil N. Awan


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Sourcing is insufficient Star   Mississippi  15:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Akil N. Awan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm not convinced this relatively junior academic meets WP:NACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is straight out of a resume, we have no information about the person, only a laundry list of things they've done. PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if the article could use a rewrite, they meet NPROF C7 as "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." See: Economist, Reuters, and Sydney MH, among others. On the basis of passing the SNG, I vote keep. BhamBoi (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Throw in History Extra and NPR, and I think this is a keep on notability. BhamBoi (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources BhamBoi brings to the table. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the above, as well as the pretty reasonable citation rates for their published writings. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a G11 resume.  // Timothy :: talk  03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't buy the WP:NPROF C7 case -- he's consulted a few times, but I don't think it meets the "substantial impact" test.  In particular, the Sydney Morning Herald is a syndicated copy of the Reuters, and quite brief.  I would expect to find book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, but none were apparent.  The best case for notability is with WP:NPROF C1.  I think that this subarea does not have such low citations, and that the citation record is below the impact we are looking for.  This all brings me to (weak) delete. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Coverage in independent sources isn't sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 7 May 2023 (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.