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. ✗plicit 11:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Ahmad (researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I am not able to find a single reliable independent source with SIGCOV on this subject. A WP:BEFORE search shows multiple sources from media bureaus with no bylines. If anyone proficient in NPROF can evaluate his works, I might change my mind, as almost all the coverage about him is WP:PRIMARY. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Health and fitness, India, Uttar Pradesh, and Australia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete. His citation count is okay, but I don't think it's enough for C1 in a high-citation field. As far as I can tell he was an assistant professor and a lecturer (never a full professor) and is now an edtech entrepreneur, so I couldn't find anything to suggest a pass on the other WP:NPROF criteria. There are plenty of sources about his entrepreneurship, but I agree that pretty much all of them seems to be promotional. This at least has a bylined reporter, but doesn't seem remotely independent. These [1] [2] [3] [4] all just seem like straightforward paid coverage. This is interesting and is the closest to counting towards GNG, but it's really a story about the visa program and he just happens to be interviewed as an example, so probably doesn't qualify IMO. Overall I don't think there's any way he passes WP:NPROF, and I'm doubtful that he could pass WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see enough citations to pass NPROF#C1, and (per above) not enough for anything else. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I searched for information on the subject but found nothing significant. As a result, they fail not only WP:GNG but also WP:NPROF. Baqi:) (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2025 (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.