Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohd. Masood Ahmed


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohd. Masood Ahmed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject fails WP:BASIC notability guidelines for want of substantial coverage by unrelated parties. He also fails alternative criteria at WP:PROFESSOR; at least no part of the text before BLP & RS cleanup contained claims approaching that threshold, and no reliable sources that I've found indicate those criteria are met. This subject also fails WP:POLITICIAN despite his political connections and public positions, none of which confer automatic notability or even indicate substantial coverage of the subject because he is most often covered as a spokesperson, speaking about other (possibly noteworthy) topics. This living person's biography seems to be dedicated to promotion of a non-notable figure. JFHJr (㊟) 00:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk )  22:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Googling is infeasible due to popularity of names like Mohammed, Masood, and Ahmed. As nominator has noted, insufficient coverage in originally supplied article to pass GNG. A review of the subject's CV on his own website doesn't have anything jump out at me as likely to help provide a pass of WP:PROF. Ray  Talk 17:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a strong possibility of the subject passing WP:PROF criterion 6 as principal of the Deccan School of Management, a government-accredited higher education institution, and president of the Association of Indian Management Schools. I don't recall any instances of any equivalent institutions in the anglophone West not being considered major enough for the purposes of this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. A stand-alone school hosting a 2-year program with 120 students per year, with a total of 10 faculty members, is not a "major academic institution" in the sense of WP:PROF criterion 6, nor would I consider the Deccan School of Management a "highly regarded academic independent institute or research center." There is actually am ambiguity here, since the Deccan School of Management falls under the Dar-us-Salam trust which manages several other schools, which together may constitute an institution of some importance, but if we take that interpretation, the head of a component of a school is not the highest academic officer. There may be a claim with respect to the Association of Indian Management Schools, but since that organization bills itself as a "networking organization" on its website I don't think it falls under the academic rubric, and we revert to the GNG. Ray  Talk 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that Phil's position may be tenable on a cursory reading of the guideline and of that particular criterion. But according to the general WP:PROF notes, the criterion notes, and WP:GNG, meeting one criterion tenuously on a single ground is not adequate, especially when the reliability of sources giving substantial coverage is in question. Here, no reliable source appears to provide substantial coverage, and overall academic impact is apparently negligible. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. I only found social networks and youtube videos with a search. This doesn't pass the BASIC guideline and thus delete. Vaca  tion  9  12:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non notable, a quick search only results what my comrades already stated as above, a bunch of youtube videos and social network profiles. Unless someone provide some reliable source to sustain its notability factor I don't see why this person deserves an article within WP. Eduemo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:15, 29 January 2013 (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.