Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal (2nd 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal

[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)

Non-notable subject. In fact, seems to only exist as an act of self-promotion by a now-banned user. PepperBeast (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Although google books turns many results, most, if not all, self-published. Only one news report mention in a local newspaper. Sources used in the article unverifiable. Funny though, one sources used is actually a letter to the editor of a newspaper by this Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal ;) Clear self-promotion. Article created by the subject himself. Recently blocked for book-spamming. AhmadLX (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G12 - almost entirely a copyvio - earwig. If someone does a major cleanup - and if his webpage is correct regarding amount of publications - book publication list - he might quite possibly be notable per WP:NAUTHOR. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NAUTHOR wouldn't apply even then: 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors? → no. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? → No. 3. Created well-known work, with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? → No. 4.The person's work won significant critical attention? → No. AhmadLX (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a mere publication list doesn't establish NAUTHOR - however when someone has authored 36 books over 62 years - it is quite possible. Possible - not certain. Icewhiz (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2019 (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.