Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Malik

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. NW (Talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Malik

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

Unreferenced biography of a subject who isn't even named in full enough to be able to identify him. Even if identifed, notability isn't made out, the experiences of this solicitor are little different from many other solicitors in the UK. NtheP (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be this guy. I agree with the nominator that he appears thoroughly unnotable as a professional. The only thing that interests me is the Order of the British Empire: if that is a major award per WP:ANYBIO and can be verified, perhaps he gets across the line on that basis? None of the other awards or nominations are notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article only says he was nominated for OBE by an unspecified MP, not that he was awarded it. And the website of the law firm doesn't give any info about the individual(s) involved - under "about us" "our team", it's "coming soon". Searching the Law Society website by postcode given on the Malik Law website produces no hits; searching it by "Malik" produces "Pembroke Solicitors trading as Malik law" with one solicitor, and its website gives no info about individuals. All a bit odd. PamD (talk)

Indeed it is, I can't find any verification of either being nominated for, or having received, the OBE. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that is sufficient notable. I declined the speedy, but I am having second thoughts about that. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think "featured in high profile magazines", "recipient of several awards" and "nominated for an OBE", when the awards and magazines are specifically identified, well and truly cross the bar of a credible claim to significance or importance. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V Someone getting the OBE should be a little more conspicuous. Considering that this is likely a BLP situation, that only adds to the lack of reason to keep this article. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as anyone can tell, the OBE wasn't awarded just nominated. NtheP (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the WP:V concerns from me. It doesn't seem clear and there's no reference there, and you'd think there'd be something given even an OBE nomination from the article creator. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After I accidentally googled "Dr Malik" when I meant to put it in WP search, I found the website http://www.drmalik.com/, which lists several books he's authored, and Amazon cites him as "Akbar Malik" or "Akbar Ali Malik" - and googling the latter finds a couple of interesting 2006 newspaper stories http://www.carter-ruck.com/Miscellaneous/?page=59 and http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007_02_06/uk/apology.htmand him being suspended from practising law for 6 months in Nov 2007 - http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/consumers/SDT/mar08/Malik-9685.07.pdf . So quite a colourful character, though these sourced events don't appear in the current article! PamD (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include this, from 2000: PCC condemns bogus asylum firm lawyer- there might be the makings of an interesting article here. PamD (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tidied this article, removing most of the promotional and peacock terms to make it more neutral. I haven't added the subject's full name as I think care is needed to ensure it's the same person. I agree it could be interesting as long as it's referenced properly. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough information provided (ie forename(s)) to identify the subject of the article. If the original editor knows the forename of this "renowned person", then they can re-create the article with that title. PamD (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An earlier article of this title appears to have been Nominated for speedy deletionin Nov 2009. PamD (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. It's all unsourced, and without a name it can't be reliably sourced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (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.