Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maqsudul Alam

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maqsudul Alam

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

there is an assertion of notability, but it's impossible to discern how important his work is with the cv masquerading as an article. Ohc ^¡digame! 02:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is very poorly written (I mean only the lede, everything else is copy paste from some CV). But there are significant enough references in the article. Dr. Alam is (strongly) notable in national scope for his contributions in government backed genome projects of jute etc. and passes WP:ANYBIO. As of now, the article should be stripped down to a stub cleaning up all CV like text. – nafSadh did say 20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has put out some genome papers but during a kind of "gold-rush" era where any sequenced genome with minimal analysis was rewarded with a high-impact publication. Additionally, Nature papers alone do not a notable academic make — in my view, the subject does not hit any of the prof test criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. benmoore 14:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think ANYBIO is the criteria that we shall consider. His notability stems from national perspective. – nafSadh did say 17:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a far higher bar than the academic specific list, unclear why you're insisting it's the most relevant (generally when considering professors the best port of call is WP:PROF). Please provide the tertiary sources documenting this professor's contribution to the enduring historical record of the field, I have searched and found none. benmoore 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found one now (in Bengali): http://archive.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2010-06-19/news/72004. Most sources, I think I came to read about him, were on national Bengali media (print and TV) - which are hard to find on internet, and hard for me locate them as I am not in the country now. That being said, I was never sure why he gets that much media coverage in Bangladesh; all he did was leading some genome sequencing projects for the government. I can't however deny the fame he attained there. – nafSadh did say 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:PROF, sources [1], [2]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't clear based on WP:PROF - I couldn't find any good sources in English (I see WP:NONENG is ok with non-English sources, though). If the consensus is to keep in the end, the article needs to be cut down to the bare minimum - as it is, it's mostly just copied and pasted from Alam's homepage. The Bengali wiki page might be a good starting point for this, but I can't tell. Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles that get very high citations when the subject is just one of many co-workers on a very large project doesn't count for much, even when publishedin Nature or PNAS, but he seems to bethe responsible senior investigator for a whole string of mpapers on anaerobic bacteria by his group in Hawaii. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:05, 4 October 2014 (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.