Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delwar Hussain


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Delwar Hussain

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

An anthropologist and university lecturer who wrote a book. The book was widely reviewed in academic journals, is held by more than 100 libraries, and has been cited 58 times, all of which is good. The notes for WP:PROF criterion #1, however, say that demonstrating significant impact typically requires "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Nothing else he has published has made much impact.

The cited sources are a self-published blog post, his non-independent capsule bio at The Guardian (one of several publications he occasionally writes for), and his non-independent capsule bio at the School of Social and Political Science where he teaches. Searches found no independent reliable sources that would allow him to meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bangladesh,  and United Kingdom. Worldbruce (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment as a book author and a journalist seems to be not notable and the nom gave a good explanation above. I think, the page could be deleted. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been able to find several academic reviews of his primary book, suggesting a possible WP:NAUTHOR pass. Curbon7 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I know academics can be notable for non-academic writing (popular history, fiction, poetry, etc.) but I confess I'd never considered applying WP:NAUTHOR to scholarly reviews of books in their academic field. My sense is that faculty are expected to publish, and these days almost every scholarly book attracts some reviews in the plethora of academic journals. So allowing scholarly reviews of a single academic book to demonstrate notability would move the bar substantially lower than I think the creators of WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR ever intended. I look forward to hearing more views. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some fields of academia are more oriented toward publishing books than others, which focus more on journal articles. The typical wiki-notability rule of thumb invoked for book-oriented fields is that the academic has to have published multiple books, each of which has received multiple reviews. If there is only one book and nothing else, then it might make more sense to refactor the article to be about the book, using the reviews as secondary sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the suggestion of refactoring this article to focus on the more noteworthy book he authored. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not entirely obvious, but does not seem notable enough. Has written one book, and the book does not particularly notable. Jeppiz (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I think the scholarly reviews are enough for a pass, either AUTHOR or PROF. That other scholars have taken notice of his book would seem to satisfy PROF. Unless he's basically told his theories were garbage, I'd suspect giving a book review qualifies as scholarly notice. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get more input regarding whether or not NAUTHOR and/or NPROF are met Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reviews of a single book are not enough for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. He'd need more books, or maybe a really outstandingly transformative one, and this isn't that. Someone could surely write an article about his book, but that would be very different from the article that we currently have - I don't think there's anything useful in the current article for that, so I don't think we need to consider the suggestion of refactoring the article in this deletion discussion. I'm also concerned that this article appears to be very out of date (for example, he has not written for the guardian since 2010), but I couldn't find anything to update it with. I suspect the author has left both academia and journalism and is no longer a public figure in any sense. -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete. One multiply-reviewed book is not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me and that seems the only case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there was any content about the book, I’d say to rewrite into an article about the book instead, since the reviews give us WP:NBOOK. But it typically takes several books for WP:NAUTHOR. And there’s no way we’re looking at WP:NPROF. Contrary to the claim above, in academia a book review does not qualify as “scholarly notice” to the degree required to make someone remarkable compared to the baseline expectation for all profs (which is what NPROF is trying to capture). Having a book with a handful of reviews is, in anthropology, the bare minimum not to get fired. It’s an achievement, sure, but no more notable from an encyclopedia’s perspective than a doctor who finishes their residency. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete reviews of a single book are not enough for WP:NAUTHOR and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 1 March 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.