Talk:Adil Najam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-03. The result of the discussion was Delete.
Deletion review A deletion review for Adil Najam article was concluded on 16 May 2008. The result of the discussion was once moved to article space rather list at AfD.

This draft has been discussed with reference to above AfD at Deletion review with the outcome to not consider it a recreation anymore, but rather list another time at AfD once moved to article space.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources

Following references are from unreliable sources:

Following sentence is misleading: "He has earned a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other scientists on an international climate change council." Per nobel prize site, the 2007 award was given to Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. and "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)". In other words, it was given to IPCC as an organization. Claiming Najam to be a nobel prize recipient is fraudulent. Under that logic, every one of 100,000 or more of the owners/shareholders/executives of Grameen Bank can claim themselves to be a Nobel laureate.


Most of the bio has been taken off the single Boston Globe article. I'd like to see more significant media coverage from other sources ... a single profile in a newspaper isn't enough to establish notability.

By the way, per the DRV decision, it should go on AFD right after recreation. --Ragib (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my comment above was somewhat different than the DRV box, as it simply suggested to exempt this post from G4 and rather bring it to AfD. Moreover, I am not a fan of lackluster 'procedural' listings in general. So it can be nominated now or later by interested parties if there are no further sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the DRV closing comment does not state that it *must* be brought to AfD, just that it should be discussed at AfD instead of speedied. Just nominate it for AfD if you think that it qualifies. I won't nominate it myself because I think that the article can be mended by normal editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, Ragib, I'm not sure I'm following what happened. I see the argument is gone from the "Difference of Interest". Thats good, we resolved that. Now what happened? Who put the page back? (quite surprised me). Is it again in danger of being deleted? There was a group of people who agreed the notability is not only due to the article in the Boston Globe, but rather to the various quotes of his sayings by friend and foe alike. I'm not sure I understand. Is there still an argument about this? Please help me sort this out. (That was 3 questions). Thanks and good month Pashute (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The closure deletion review is above linked and summarized. The latest draft in user space with the Boston Globe citations was considered to pass the G4 criterion (of not addressing the original AfD). I didn't t move it back immediately, because i wasn't sure whether some work should be done before. Enric Ed then moved it back to article space, which is fine as it was in his user space. It is still possible and legitimate for someone to bring it to AFD but also not compulsory, since the deletion review was closed only in the minimal sense that the previous AfD doesn't apply anymore.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Enric and Tikiwont that we should wait to see if anyone nominates it for AfD. Ragib can nominate it if he wishes. I still think the references can be better, and the reliance on blog posts is not so good. The man himself is probably notable. No doubt more good material can be found, so I don't see any urgency now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK Thanks Ed.

Ragib you had four issues with the article. 1) Nobel prize. But you already changed that, and others fine tuned it, so that issue is closed. 2) The two forum sources ARE RELIABLE in our context, because they are showing that the on the web certain unreliable types of information is prevalant about the man. The arguments on the sites are obviously real, did you look at them and do you have any doubt about them? If so, could you give an example, of what this doubt could be. IMHO issue should be closed 3) "Most of the bio taken from a single article". First, each of the sentences brought down in the bio are covered by an extrnal reference. When it said (meanwhile erased) that he has spoken before the UN General Assembly, there is a YouTube movie showing the speach. When it talks about the Mosque attack and the Pakistaniat real-time discussion, there are both a ref to the actual discussion and two references to other sources. I now went over the first 200 entries of Google and added anything that looks relevant and new. I think this too can be closed, although I definitely see the man has worked PR for himself, but that is how the academic and political world work. 4) ... a single article ... is not enough to establish notability: I think the books, the various recognition received, places where he spoke, and the quotes in blogs show that he is thought of as a somewhat celebrity in the Pakistani diaspora and possibly in Pakistan itself. In this case the blogs and talkbacks - especially anti Adil - are revealing and should not be dismissed. Last but not least, it seems that his academic work is closely attached to his opinions on Pakistani politics, nationality and ethnic issues. So all these can definitely be connected together. I again must say that in my country, people like this would not be on my "suspected" list, to double check their agenda, motives, opinions etc. Still it was interesting going thru the listings, seeing the self PR pattern etc. But again, once a person is established with a certain image, the credentials will be repeated and echoed in various ways. And so we find his personal resume on one university site evolve into the next cv at the next university, then echoed in a newspaper, taken to blogs, TV and more

Please see http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/PolyCy/psteach.html quoting (among others) using his book as textbook. Pashute (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Online forums do not qualify as a reliable source. That issue is still here.
  1. Discussions in the subject's own blog? That's not really a good "source" in any way. Notability would be established if you find multiple reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage on the subject. So far, Boston Globe is the only significant coverage form a RS.
  1. His book taught as a textbook? The link you provide only lists the book under the category "Others", this hardly qualifies as a text book. Even then, what does it signify? One of my articles have been listed in course web pages at 6+ universities across the world ... will that make me as notable? You might also find that the same polsci course page also lists tens of other books by various other professors. Such linking does not make those professors notable, nor does it make Najam notable.

I also noticed that you are adding blog links in EL section, e.g. [1]. WP is not the place to add such links, nor does these blog links signify anything. Any given day, I can write a blog about anyone on my self-published blog ... that won't serve as a reference to that person's notability. Interestingly, the blog I linked here, is actually by another wikipedian: User:IFaqeer :) --Ragib (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)