Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Durani

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. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Durani

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

Prod was removed by editor who was hoping that with some time would come some improvement; it hasn't come. Subject does not meet our notability guidelines. References provided are unverifiable (for reasons which are obvious if you look at them), and in Google News all I found was this, a letter to the editor of The Sacramento Bee--LexisNexis and Newspaper Source do not provide the text of that letter. No hits for our subject in Google Books or Google Scholar.

The article, as we have it now, is more like a vanity piece than an article, and given the non-notability of the subject should be deleted from Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's all very admirable what he is trying to do, but there has been no coverage about him or his activities in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW -- There are sixteen references to him on "site:unlv.edu" -- University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He made the Dean's list several years in a row. No, I am not suggesting that this alone would make him notable, even if he were the first nuclear engineer from his country. It shows this is not a hoax article however, if anyone was wondering. Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources at all, aside from a couple of letters to the editor of the Sacramento Bee. Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 8 October 2009 (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.