Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atta ur Rehman Khan

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. For the sake of completeness: None of the arguments provided on the talk page explain how WP:BIO or WP:GNG are met - the words "well reputed", "notable" and the like do not count per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atta ur Rehman Khan

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

No evidence of any notability. Overtly self promotional. The over numerous references are own web-sites and own publications and mentions as editor etc. for journals. I struggled through and could not find anything that conveyed notability. In my judgement, this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 2014 PhD would have to be extremely exceptional to pass WP:PROF, and I don't see anything that indicates notability on any other count. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional article. The references provided are not reliable enough. The subject is not worthy enough to warrant an entry on WP yet. and it look like the page is created by a close associate of the subject and who knows by subject himself. --Saqib (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - original report was properly transcluded but article author has twice deleted the entry from the list. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam and promotional. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody has come up with, and I can't find, any evidence that the subject might pass WP:PROF or the general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2016 (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.