Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazlur Rahman Faridi


 * 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. I'm closing this as no consensus after two re-listings. The nominator was blocked as a sock puppet and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus and a third relist wouldn't benefit the article in my eyes. (non-admin closure) st170e talk 01:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Fazlur Rahman Faridi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability - Arts  Rescuer  •  Talk me  12:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs).
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 04:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Fazlur Rahman Faridi) --Sam Sailor Talk! 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Could the nominator elaborate, please? The article is a bit underreferenced, but it does have links to two lengthy independent obituaries that call him "eminent" and "renowned". Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Content copied from the link: http://thesolution.in/wiki/dr-fazlur-rahman-faridi @User:RHaworth • Arts Rescuer 23:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but it looks like it is vice-versa: the text of the article was copied to the external web site.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  07:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks like a copy of wikipedia: the article's creation date (according to its metadata is 2015), while the wikipedia article here has been around in its present form since 2013. Uanfala (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Your vote as nominator counts automatically. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best for now and restore or restart if needed at all later because, if there's anything acceptable from the current article, I'm simply not seeing it and the current article is noticeably troubled thus there's simply nothing at all to actually suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister   talk  19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The person is probably notable, as shown by the sources cited in the article . Also, Google Books search returns many hits .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the first 15 results in the google books link you provided, but they all either cite him or are written by himself. None of them appear to be about him, so I don't think they are relevant here. Citations might be (according to WP:PROF), provided he's been cited substantially more than other scholars in his field. Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 18:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The nominator did not have a decent reason to delete. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not found in sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2016 (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.