Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddiqua Mazhar


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Siddiqua Mazhar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A PhD student, with no publications or any other research accomplishments yet. No indication of passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. It my opinion this is a straightforward CSD:A7 case, by A7 was declined, and so I am listing the article at AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that this is close to A7 and far from WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG not met, and since when is "teaches mathematics to degree level" a credible claim of significance? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Who said it was? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  06:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete GNG has not been met. Notability has not been established. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF - GretLomborg (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to make a claim for notability in the lead; fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NACADEMIC for lack of accomplishments, lack of coverage, lack of independent ssources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2017 (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.