Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonis Ahmar (3rd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonis Ahmar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Last discussion from 2017 was closed as no consensus, I believe it is time that this article be revisited. Somehow it also managed to go over two years with its lead being Template:Resume. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I can find is to the tune of "Dr. Moonis Ahmar [title/position] [said/argued] [this]: [1][2](Opinion pieces) [3][4][5][6] It was hard to find articles because he writes many of them, I had to search moonis ahmar -site:https://tribune.com.pk/ to find any. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some cites on GS but not enough yet for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This unreferenced article has been on Wikipedia for over 14 years. At first thought I was wondering if we should give more time to find sources, but when I realized it had been on Wikipedia for well over a decade I realized that its very existence is in such huge defiance of principles like verifiability that we should scrap it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on GS but in my view they are not yet enough WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom, PR. Google shows some interesting results but nothing to suggest notability --Devokewater@ 18:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found some citations on Google Scholar but not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and three book reviews on JSTOR [7] [8] [9] for three separate books (only one review per book), not quite enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR (I'd prefer to see at least two books with at least two reviews each). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2020 (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.