Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inamul Haque

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inamul Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is an autobiography of an apparently unpublished researcher. However, speedy deletion of the article per CSD A7 is contested, and the issue is not sufficiently clear as to merit forcing the speedy deletion request back onto the article. John254 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable independent sources are produced to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not able to find reliable sources to establish notability - if they exist, they need to be in the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not verified enough; need sources -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and use title as redirect to Enamul Haque. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator's claim that he's unpublished seems to be false, according to a Google scholar search. But it takes a big splash to achieve notability for postdoctoral-level research and I'm not seeing it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. --Crusio (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i find 4 papers in pub med, but Web of Science shows the most cited has been cited only 7 times. Not yet notable. There are several other Indian chemists of the name, but they work in somewhat different areas.DGG (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2008 (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.