Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Imran Qadir

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. Star Mississippi 03:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Imran Qadir (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)

Article is a bunch of Promotional contents. References are more than 60, but all fake just to support inline citations. Also seems like that the page is generated from AI. Nothing find notable that are meeting the criteria for the WP:BLP, also failed basic WP:GNG. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The length that someone went to fake the references is impressive, so much so that I would be inclined to believe they were AI-generated if it weren't for the fact that some of the fake references have been there for years. No independent references that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create this article on Artificial Intelligence module and the response was same as the article is written here. Sackiii (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was only referring to the faked references in my post, but I'm not at all surprised that the article was AI-generated as well. Thanks for nominating. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine961 did you check out the references yourself, or were you relying on Sackiii's assessment? If the former, which references do you consider to be fake? If the latter, Sackiii is a sockpuppet and their nomination is likely to be in bad faith, given that the tags they added to the article were all inappropriate. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out three of the listed references in the article at the time I wrote the comment, and both led to 404s. I then looked back at the article's history to see how long the references had been there. Madeleine (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because, although the outcome appears clear, Sackiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indeffed as a sock, so we need at least one more legitimate editor to agree with deletion to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator was a sock. And has a personal problem with the subject. His deletion statement claim is baseless as he wrote: References are more than 60, but all fake.

Therefore, it is requested to retain the article and remove the tags from the article which were placed by the sock on the page. Bestworkers (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From what I can see, the references are fine, and the nomination was made in bad faith. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would be astounded if the creator, Bestworkers, was not paid to create this. The inflated claims do not stack up. Nobody not named Qadir ever seems to have written about the "Qadir test" for cancer, beyond the original PR cited. Ditto Qadirvirtide, claimed to be an effective prophylactic for AIDS. Big if true, as the kids say. Ditto QadirVax-19. Either the guy is literally Buckaroo Banzai, or this is vanispamcruftisement. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trust me, I was not paid a single penny. Whatever the subject is either Buckaroo Banzai, or vanispamcruftisement. But, your decision must be evidence based:

  Qadir test

  QadirVax-19 Bestworkers (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Claimed to be an effective prophylactic for AIDS" may be modified. Bestworkers (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per JzG. Aside from PR fluff, these aren't really reliable sources, and fails a basic sniff test. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoshuaZ and JzG: how would someone fake a h-index of 52 and why would they? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By publishing a lot. And nor does it matter: the claims in the article are sufficiently florid as to cast doubt on the rest. He claims to have invented a test for cancer, a vaccine for AIDS, a cure for AIDS, a cure for COVID-19, a vaccine for COVID-19, a new type of bacteriophage, and the rest, and named every single one of them after himself. Seriously? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In 2020 he clearly did have a paper describing a design for a COVID drug in the Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1) H index is highly gameable and not an argument by itself for notability. 2) I'm not sure why you think having a paper for a drug which didn't go anywhere is an argument for notability either. WP:N and WP:BIO are things. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My assessment at AfC was that he met criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the only evidence for that H index? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Although, you will think my opinion biased as I drafted this article. But, in 2017, ministry of science and technology, government of Pakistan used 8 parameters to evaluate their scientist's progress for the last 3 years. And the subject was declared the top, in the field of Pharmaceutical sciences.

  Result of Research Productivity Award (at page 27 of 31 OR marked as 24 on the page)

  (It was the last evaluation by the government of Pakistan, and I am sure that he is still at the top if evaluated now again) Bestworkers (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N and WP:BIO

  The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are independent and reliable:

  1. https://www.nation.com.pk/04-Nov-2017/scientist-invents-new-test-to-diagnose-cancer
  2. https://archive.jang.com.pk/08-20-2016/Multan/page13.asp
  3. https://www.nation.com.pk/11-Sep-2024/bzu-s-dr-imran-qadir-honoured
  4. https://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1107652407&Issue=NP_MUX&Date=20200811
  5. https://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2017-02-15&edition=MUL&id=2921379_27759814
  6. https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/bzu-teacher-presents-theory-on-cancer-cause-102150.html

  Bestworkers (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Several of the .pdf links lead to pages with 404 errors, and I could not find anything to establish WP:NOTABILITY.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All the pdf links have been linked correctly. You can check now. Problem was created by someone (like Sackiii) in bad faith.

  Regarding  WP:NOTABILITY, I have given at least 6 points above (I am copying again at the last for your ready reference). By the way, are you Sackiii who nominated AfD or his associate, as you are closing your eyes for the above 6 WP:NOTABILITY points.

  Sackiii first claimed that “all references are fake”. And now (through others) is objecting Notability (that has been proved by the above 6 points)…….and then, there will be another objection. In my opinion, as it was established that “references were not fake”, the discussion was expected to be closed, and the article be Kept.

  Here is an important point to be noted that this article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, an effort for the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. So that do not compare the Subject with a person in USA.

  1.      There are not more than 10 academic persons within the Pakistan with a high citation (4.5K) Scopus, Web of Science.

  2.      Give me the name of any “Registered Pharmacist” in Pakistan who has more contributed than the subject. You cannot!

  3.      Wikipedia:Notability (academics): The person has received a highly prestigious academic award at a national level (see criterion No. 2): Best Young Research Scholar from Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, Best Research Paper from Punjab Higher Education Commission, Gold Medal from Pakistan Academy of Sciences.

  4.      Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (see criterion No. 3) The person has been an elected member of Royal Society of Chemistry. (A very small numbers from Pakistan)

  WP:N and WP:BIO:

  The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are independent and reliable:

  1. https://www.nation.com.pk/04-Nov-2017/scientist-invents-new-test-to-diagnose-cancer
  2. https://archive.jang.com.pk/08-20-2016/Multan/page13.asp
  3. https://www.nation.com.pk/11-Sep-2024/bzu-s-dr-imran-qadir-honoured
  4. https://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1107652407&Issue=NP_MUX&Date=20200811
  5. https://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2017-02-15&edition=MUL&id=2921379_27759814
  6. https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/bzu-teacher-presents-theory-on-cancer-cause-102150.html

  Bestworkers (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Moreover, as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (see criterion No. 8), the person has been the head of a section of a major, well-established academic journal: Current Cancer Drug Targets: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/ccdt/2020/00000020/00000005/art00002?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf Bestworkers (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't like the look of these pdf's when several of them I opened had a list of refs to Qadir. The cancer test hasn't went through to multicentre trials, so its not valid any means. If it was genuine he would automatically notable. I don't like the fact that newspapers and magazines are being used as sources, instread of academic journal written by secondary sources. I don't like the look of the article either. Why is he only an associate professor instead of a full professor. Where is the promotion you would normally get for doing this work. It may be WP:TOOSOON. If its real, the evidence will speak for itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Several of them I opened had a list of references to Qadir! Yes, it is because almost all of the work related to Qadir test was done by Qadir. It has been established in Pakistan and, therefore, valid in Pakistan. Therefore, it is well established through newspapers and magazines in Pakistan. Sentences will be modified in the article that the the test is valid in Pakistan. I have also pointed out above that the article (Muhammad Imran Qadir) is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, an effort for the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. So that do not compare the Subject with a person in USA or UK.

  You wrote: Fails WP:SIGCOV. Note that the topic is Muhammad Imran Qadir, not Qadir test. If you skip Qadir test’s notability worldwide (although it is notable in Pakistan), still the topic (Muhammad Imran Qadir) is notable worldwide:

  1.  https://archive.jang.com.pk/08-20-2016/Multan/page13.asp

  2.  https://www.nation.com.pk/11-Sep-2024/bzu-s-dr-imran-qadir-honoured

  3.  https://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1107652407&Issue=NP_MUX&Date=20200811

  4.  https://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2017-02-15&edition=MUL&id=2921379_27759814

  5.  https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/bzu-teacher-presents-theory-on-cancer-cause-102150.html

  In response to point of full professor & WP:TOOSOON. Dear administrator, as I told previously, another irrelevant point will be raised. Think it critically, associate professor or full professor, is it needed for WP:N and WP:BIO? Reality is that, my dear it is Pakistan, come here and see how political influence is needed for promotion/selection in Pakistani universities. Moreover, I have come to know that there was no selection board in the university, he is working in, since last five years.

  Administrator is requested to close the discussion, and keep the article. Thank you Bestworkers (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As you asked for academic journal as secondary source, I am linking here a Journal's Newsletter that was published in 2010, related to Qadir test:

  A Cheap Method for Diagnosis of Cancer

  I know, you will raise an other un-related objection. Possibly one of them may be, why it is written by Qadir himself. I have answered above that, as almost all the work related to Qadir test was done by himself and he can present it in a better way, therefore, this linked article was also written by him. Bestworkers (talk) 09:37, 20 March 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.