Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farooq Azam


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Farooq Azam

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject in the article is not notable to have a Wikipedia article. There are no references provided to except 2 very unreliable web links, , where anyone can edit the information. It appears that the person who created the article and most of the edits to it may well be the subject of the article. AllahLovesYou (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. GS cites 2192, 815, 682, 455 .... h index about 40. ISI highly cited researcher, honorary doctorate etc. This is the most inappropriate AfD nomination I have seen on these pages. It is worth looking at the nominator's talk page where he is accused of vandalizing Islamic articles. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for such a spectacularly bad nomination. Essentially every single statement in the nomination is incorrect. The first link is to the official ISI Web of Knowledge site and the second is to Azam's faculty profile at the USCD Scripps Institution of Oceanography official site. Both are perfeclty good reliable sources and neither one is a site "where anyone can edit the information". The article was created by User:Mustihussain - this might have been a postdoc or a grad student, but there is no evidence that it was created by the subject of the article. As Xxanthippe said, being on the ISI Highly Cited list is already essentially enough to pass WP:PROF#1. Holding a Distinguished Professor rank at USCD also qualifies for WP:PROF#5. It took just a few minutes of searching to verify that the other awards listed in the article also check out - I have added a bunch of references for them. Clearly passes WP:PROF on several counts. Nsk92 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - Me bing accused of vandalizing Islamic articles is irrelevant to this, if you pay attention to my edits you wouldn't mention something like that. The one who accused me of that was completely removing top academic and government sources such as Pew Research Center, Oxford University, CIA World Factbook, and others and replacing them with his own POV by claiming that Shias in Pakistan are over 30%. However, the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, states that Shias in Pakistan make up 5% but I've added the numbers given by all academic and government sources which estimates 5-20%. Now how is this vandalizm on my part? About Farooq Azam's page, it was written very poorly at the time when I added the deletion tag but someone now decided to re-write it. Anytime someone writes an incomplete article about someone who isn't well known is usually nominated for deletion so I think my judgement was ok in this particular case.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that whatever dispute you have been involved in on Shia related articles is largely irrelevant to this AfD. However, you are quite wrong in relation to what you say about the Farooq Azam article. The basic principle of Wikipedia's deletion policy is this: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion", see WP:ATD. It is only where a page's content is unsalvageably bad that deletion is appropriate, but that was far from the case here with the version of the article that you listed for AfD. The awards listed in the article at the time you tagged it already provided a strong indication that the subject is notable and if you had done a few quick google searches (GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks etc), you would have been able to quickly confirm that the subject is notable. As I said, it took me just a few minutes of googling to find sources verifying the various awards listed in the article. Plus what you said in your nomination about the two sources, cited in the article at time you AfD-ed it, is blatantly incorrect. Both of those sources definitely pass WP:V and a listing in the ISI Web of Knowledge Highly Cited database is a strong indicator of academic notability. If you did not want to edit the article yourself, the correct thing to do was to add to it various clean-up tags, again see WP:ATD, not list it for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep per WP:PROF #C1, #C5, and possibly also #C2 and #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relist rationale: This is a BLP, and it seems to never properly listed in the deletion logs, so it hasn't attracted the usual level of participation. As a participant I can't close. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above. Ray  Talk 19:00, 10 September 2010 (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.