Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashir Syed Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bashir_Syed

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. A single source is not sufficient to satisfy notability, and the other keep !vote isn't addressing the notability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Syed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Better for CV but not for WP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Factoring out other people with similar names, I only found single-digit citations for his works in Google Scholar. Does not pass WP:PROF, and no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also couldn't find anything that would pass WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears notable enough in the area of Pakistani science and tech, see this 2005 Dawn article for example. Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLESOURCE is not enough for passing WP:GNG. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously this article needs quite a bit of re-organizing for it's improvement, but I'm not sure if deletion is applicable at this point.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Week delete while there is at least one article discussing the subject but I don't think this is enough to demonstrate the notablity of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subject's h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.