Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Ehsanul Karim (2nd nomination)

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 05:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Ehsanul Karim (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)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please explain the reason for selection of this article for deletion which has multiple valid references? Dawoodkarim (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please explain the reason for selection of this article for deletion which has multiple valid references? Dawoodkarim (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple valid references, he is not a living person, he is famous in his field. I do not support it's deletion. Dawoodkarim (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawoodkarim, you don't need to make the same comment three times. The reason for nominating this article for deletion is in the deletion rationale at the top of this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't see how he passes either WP:SOLDIER or GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But there are valid references! Why not considering them? Dawoodkarim (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SOLDIER has been depreciated, but I doubt he would have passed it in any case. And I just don't see enough for GNG. Intothatdarkness 15:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2022 (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.