Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Zarrar

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. Sandstein 07:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Zarrar

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

doesn't seems to meet WP:GNG. I found a few name checks in RS but nothing else. no in depth coverage on the subject. no notable career. Saqib (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable enough for a stub-article. It is actually the lack of online sources as is the case with many Pakistani articles. Head of Department or Head physician of a notable Institution is significant notability for a stub-article. Wikipedia itself says that most are notable in their field even though the subject is not discussed in detail in secondary sources.Maooz180 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see him passing WP:PROF and I don't think solely being head of a department in an academic institution makes one notable enough to warrant a standalone entry on WP, which include stubs. One still has to pass basic WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see him passing WP:ACADEMIC. It suggests under 'criteria' section: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. The sixth point section suggests if the subject is appointed administrative post at a notable Academic institution. So, i see him passing atleast for stub-article.Maooz180 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even remote pass of of WP:Prof. Nothing else for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete hospital department heads are not default notable. I do not think it has ever been agreed that even the overall head of a teaching hospital meets the "notable Academic institution administrator" criteria. This is usally interpreted to mean the president of a university. It is never applied to heads of departments, and has never consistently been applied to heads of sub-units of a university, although possible some business schools, law schools and medical schools are notable enough that all heads of them are default notable. A department in a hospital is clearly not enough to make someone notable as an academic, and nothing else here suggests the subject is notable as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a word on this issue. I found User:Johnpacklambert's comment most interesting. Its true that Head of Department is not the biggest aministrative post, but it is the second biggest post after presidency/principal of a medical institute. Secondly, its not just about a high post but also about reliable sources connected with the high post. The subject is featured by secondary sources. And lastly; I respect the views of my fellow wikipedians as the 6th point in criteria section of WP:ACADEMIC is subject to interpretation. My fellow wikipedians agree with a subject being notable if he's a principal/president of a notable institution provided he/she has RS. But my question is, that why cannot Head of Departments(which is also a rare administrative post) of a notable institute be featured atleast for a stub article, provided they also have RS. When we compare sports,music,arts figures with academic figures, the later is always met by strict boundaries for notabitiliy whereas there are sportsmen on wikipedia that have only played 1 international match. Examples: Alex Silvestro(Stub-Class), Andy Ganteaume(GA-Class), Charles Marriott(Start-Class). In otherwords; why cannot we make a lighter interpretation of the 6th point for academic figures? Maooz180 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF, not notable as a professor, not notable as the head of department. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:PROF as already mentioned above and below analysis. The reference are nether referring to his life nor a coverage of his life. Ref 5 mentioned his education, this reference every cardiologist can have it. Even semi skilled lab assistant can be mentioned on website as long as he's employed. This also applies to Refs 2, 3 and 4 which are all PRIMARY including place he works. The first Ref from Daily Times is mere mention, when you are quoted such one-off time in the press doesn't mean automatic ticket for Wikipedia article. That said, there's no WP:SIGCOV of this "assistant professor" in reliable, independent sources, therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2017 (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.