Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umair 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 keep. albeit weakly. We have two PRODs, two refunds and three relists. However there appears to be a rough consensus that an article should exist about Haque. Star Mississippi 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umair Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This biography was somehow deleted via PROD in 2015, brought back via WP:RFUD in 2019, and then deleted via PROD again in 2021. I just restored it at RFUD the second time specifically so that I could initiate this AfD to settle notability via discussion. The page deleted in 2015 is superior to the current version but I agree it fails to establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, my fault here, although I think it would still have led us here, to this AFD. The first PROD tagging didn't have an edit summary indicating that the editor had posted a Proposed Deletion notice on the article. That is standard behavior when PRODding an article or file. Typically, admins who review PRODs look at the edit summaries in the page history to ensure the article has not been PROD'd or taken to AFD before. If there had been an edit summary indicating a former proposed deletion, I would have removed the 2nd PROD notice and it wouldn't have been deleted a second time via Proposed Deletion. But I think in that case, we might have come to this AFD sooner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, there is independent coverage and critique of his views and writing.^[1][2][3][4]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete. These are some awfully thin threads to hang notability on. By these standards, I could conceivably be an article subject (and I know I'm not "notable"). BD2412 T 01:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 would confirm his notability if he has created something that is then the subject of multiple independent reviews. With regards to his book The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a disruptively better business, it does have at least two such reviews:

1. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-review-the-new-capitalist-manifesto-building-a-disruptively-better-business/
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315942495_The_New_Capitalist_Manifesto_Building_a_Disruptively_better_Business_Book_Review

So I think I've got it right that he therefore meets WP:AUTHOR. Sorry, normally I'd edit these in, but the "bibliography" section uses some sort of template and I don't have the skills. Also, please do ping me if I've got my analysis wrong. CT55555 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The second link CT55555 posted, published in a journal, looks entirely unambiguous. The first is a blog (bad) from the London School of Economics (quite prestigious). The Irish Times article linked above looks like a pretty thorough review to me, and The National article there also has him as the primary topic. Here's a bit about him from NPR also. That looks to be about it for substantive coverage, but added together it looks like a GNG or WP:NAUTHOR pass to me. Rusalkii (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously my first url has the word blog in it, and it is titled as a blog, but I think it's because it's a university and book reviews are opinions rather than peer reviewed facts, as I see it, it's a bona fide book review. CT55555 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you, but there are definitely people in deletion discussions that disapprove of anything bloggy, so I figured I'd flag that. That being said, having read the second review more carefully it doesn't inspire confidence. "In General, the book is interesting, profound, brilliant, academic and ethical"? Doesn't change my !vote, but also noteworthy.

In any case, I've updated the article a little so that it at least has more than one sentence to say about him and no uncited content. Rusalkii (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see enough news sources like this and this to make me believe the article can be sufficiently improved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 4 April 2022 (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.