Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Shahid Alam


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

M. Shahid Alam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite his own numerous publications, this is not the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources (failing WP:BASIC). This subject also fails WP:PROFESSOR; there's no indication this individual is widely cited, and most publications giving even trivial mention seem to come from organizations with which the subject is affiliated. JFHJr (㊟) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject seems to have produced at least a couple of articles on corruption from the 1990s that have definitely been academically widely cited. The subject's more recent anti-Israel polemics seem to have attracted attention both from allies and opponents (though possibly not beyond the "passing mention" level - I haven't checked in enough detail to be certain). While I'm not convinced of the subject's notability, I'm far from convinced of the opposite either - on current evidence, a relatively close call. PWilkinson (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article cites academic work of subject that could be taken as a reliable source itself for the topics covered.  -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting substantial coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources is not needed? Generally we don't base WP:N on the subject's own publications, no matter how prolific. Third parties need to cite them as important, or cover the subject himself. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting that due to the work which itself can be taken as reliable for the given topics there's a very high probability of presence of sources in print/offline media and the article should not be deleted simply because of absence of online material. The article should be given a chance so that some editors who do have access to that material may add the sources. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call a high probability is simply hypothetical until such sources are actually identified. That you think they probably exist is not a valid reason to vote keep. Of course offline sources are perfectly acceptable if they are verifiable, but they must be shown to exist if notability will rest on them. JFHJr (㊟) 01:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here are some published writings of him by third party sources. And here's a review of some of his works by an author other than him published by a third party and another. A biography + review of book. Review by a notable publisher. -- lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these are enough to even get separate articles for the book(s) being reviewed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 13:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Comment Most of the sources listed by TopGun are not very useful, I fear. That Alam has published is irrelevant, what counts is whether those publications have been noted (refs 3-6). I'm not sure the review in ref 7 is published in a reliable source (not saying it isn't, just that I don't know). The review in ref 8 is substantial, independent, and a reliable source. Ref 9 is just a promotional blurb by the publisher and absolutely not independent or useful to establish notability. Ref 10 seems just to be a blog and not a WP:RS. Ref 11 is to a bookseller and completely unusable (they're trying to sell the book, like MacMillan, they're not going to be critical and only write how great the stuff and its author are). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the publisher's view on the book are biased or not are not being discussed here WP:NPOV will be considered when including that content in the article. In this discussion, the review itself is of significance proving the notability. I think you do consider amazon as a reliable source (regardless of their bias for a book they published). I also assume you realize that publisher (whatever interests they may have) are a third party. Just because a newspaper advertizes their news articles doesn't mean that their articles will not be reliable source anymore. About the ref with a critical review, I think it is reliable and seems to be written by an expert other wise as well. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazon will list anything if there's a market for it (they even list Wikipedia rip-offs). That does not contribute anything to notability and amazon is not a reliable source of reviews (it can be used to confirm that a certain book exists, or to find an ISBN, but nothing more). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2012 (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.