Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdullah Baqui

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdullah Baqui
 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Nomination Withdrawn. Mdann52 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin)

AfC declined article six times, not notable. At present, there is no change from the last declined submission except for the submitted tag, appears that creator may be editor-shopping. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Editor found. --  :- ) Don 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Just checking 2 citations, he appears to definitely meet minimum notability. I was going to approve it until I saw the MFD. --   :- ) Don  16:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received significant coverage in the Financial Express and in Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha. Whatever the draft's problems, notability isn't among them. Huon (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - After six submissions declined, there's no chance of Articles for creation approving the page. Delete to put an end to the resubmission. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - have you looked at the draft's merits? Like Don, I'd say the draft should be approved because notability is clearly established. Since Don said so before your !vote, I wonder why you couldn't see a chance for approval. Huon (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only notablility claim is that his UNICEF allegedly based some recommendation of his research. (which may be true, but now it is original research, by the way) Which is kinda overstatement. There were A LOT of people doing the same kind of research. For example zinc was linked to diarrhea and a number of other postnatal problems at least in early 1970s (when the honored doctor was not yet). Unless there is an independent source which says that he was pioneering, not just reproducing the same study but in a different country. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -thoroughly declined; no merits to keep it as promotion. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (changed) Accept and go through normal AfD process, per Thumperward. In the case of deletion, there will be stronger grounds against article recreation. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh. If people think the current draft is adequate, move it into articlespace. I agree that if it doesn't survive now then it never will. Fighting over an AfC page is silly and deeply BITEy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to boldly move it into article space, but I see it is already there. I agree with Chris.  In my opinion the last few people who looked at it used a much too stringent criterion for declining the article. My own view of afc   is that if the article is good enough to pass speedy, the editor has a right to try in article space, though   we should urge them to improve it sufficiently that it would have a reasonable chance of  passing afd, to avoid their work  being a futile effort.  If anyone wants to work on the article further, I would advise looking for actual citations to the person's work, which is the standard way of showing notability for researchers under WP:PROF. Merely "influencing decisions" is not notable unless it can be sown to be truly a major influence, but it's enough of an assertion to pass speedy. Afc should not be used to prevent someone getting a community decision.  If anyone wants to delete this article now it is in article space, AfD  would be the appropriate step. This discussion is moot. There is no reason for removing afc's unless they are copyvio or attack--or sometimes outrageously promotional or the contents would not pass speedy.     DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears the original author has circumvented Mfd and put his original version of the article into Main space (I think mine is better).  Why are we wasting our time here trying to be conscientious.  Is there a block for this?  It seems that we are just playing complicated games here, depending on other people to behave.  Unofficially, CSD the article delete the MfD and block the user for 3.5 billion years, +/- 1.0 billion years. That is my vote now. I don't think shunning works on the Wiki.  --   :- ) Don  05:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment concur with Don - as nominator, if this is already in article space, this is pointless. Close the MfD.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Abdullah Baqui Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 9 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.