Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Naseer Khan

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Naseer Khan[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced academic bio. I am unable to find any sources that discuss the subject in any detail. The article consists mostly of unverified claims. - Mr X 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Delete. Sources are not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Needs better sources for verification, but was the Rector of one nationally significant university and Vice-Chancellor of another, passing WP:PROF#C6. The source cited in the article gives his name as "Naseer Khan Jadoon", so that might be a better search term. – Joe (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources for verification added. Important contributions to education and Physics listed and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadnaseer86 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't understand why explain keep isn't clearly, Also Copyvios ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from one sentence that paraphrases too closely (which I've removed), the only matches in that report are properly attributed quotes. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument for deletion. – Joe (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets academic notability requirements #6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof#C6 requires a major institution. I don't see that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2017 (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.