Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury

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

No indication that the subject is notable under WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. GScholar citation metrics are respectable but don't rise to the level of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field like engineering; no inherently notable positions mentioned in the article; no notable awards; books have not been widely reviewed. The article itself is more like a CV than an encyclopaedia article, and the username of the creator strongly suggests there's a COI involved. – Joe (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he certainly has been busy but I'm not seeing anything but promotion of his work, none of which meets the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article looking like a CV. Disclose COI and rewrite to pass WP:BIO. Genome$100 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete total failure of the notability guidelines for academics. The format of the article at present suggests we should delete it and allow a start over if there is a chance he is notable, but he just does not meet our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CAsaduzzaman and sockpuppets

Keep Please keep it and should be given the opportunity to enrich the page according to the Wikipedia policy. Some worthy contributions of Prof. Dr. Chowdhury are not included in this page. He is a writer (capable to write Bengali and English stories, poems and songs, these were published already in different media), He is a prominent Columnist (more than 100 of articles were published in National Bengali and English newspapers), he is a researcher in the field of materials (lot of worthy contributions are there), As a specialized person, he was participated in different television talk shows and as an educationist, he is involved indifferent educational, social and cultural activities. There are strong points to keep her page for inspiring the people of the world. He has a quality of multidimensional creativity. — CAsaduzzaman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Strongly recommended to keep the page of Prof. Dr. Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury. In fact, there are lot of contributions of Dr. Chowdhury but the page is not well arranged. He has a magical power to motivate others. Although he has proven himself successful in different areas and versatile personality. If the page is deleted, the great person is hidden forever. In this context exposed of the page to public is required in modified way. Rakib Ul Hasan. — Rakib Ul Hassan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It will be very frustrated one if the decision is taken as deletion. The multi talent of Prof. Dr. Chowdhury should be exposed to the public for encouraging the new generations. The page can be arranged with relevant worthy contributions of Chowdhury and it can be suggested. Suman Das. — Suman Das Canada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Checkuser note: CAsaduzzaman, Rakib Ul Hassan, and Suman Das Canada are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CAsaduzzaman.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CAsaduzzaman was the creator of the article. – Joe (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Top citation counts in Google scholar appear to be 106 ("The effect of amplitude of vibration on the coefficient of friction for different materials"), 93 ("The effect of sliding speed and normal load on friction and wear property of aluminum"), 69 ("The effect of frequency of vibration and humidity on the coefficient of friction"), etc. That's respectable, as the nomination states, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and there seems nothing else. And the article itself is a total mess of unsourced personal detail and CV-like unencyclopedic listings of all publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear COI and promotion. Messy article looks like a résumé. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. - Mar11 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2018 (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.