Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeshan Qureshi


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeshan Qureshi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This reads like a resume-not sure how reliable the refs are given that only one is a link and he isn't even mentioned there. (And you have to love how he was given a award in June 2015-yes the future!) Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - That award seems to have been changed to April now instead of June but I'm unable to find a source either way, Scholar found a few results but I'm not an academia expert so I'm not sure how useful they are and Books found passing mentions (including second page, with one "Zeeshan"); other searches News, thefreelibrary and highbeam found nothing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Have: 1. Added a reference for the award, and reworded the statement. 2. Added more hyperlinks to some of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.104.55 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that he meet notability under wp:prof. Citations in pub med appear to be valid but the writing of esoteric papers and textbooks which are not covered in a secondary fashion by other refs does not a notable academic make. BakerStMD 02:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional material has been added to make this seem less like a resume Secondary sources have been added where work is referenced, see what you think, and open to any other suggested changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.13.154 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the additions to the controversy section has made it worse as a WP:BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2015 (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.