Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil shamoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep per WP:HEY. Article will be tagged, however. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adil shamoo

Adil shamoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Merely an overly long bibliography. DarkAudit (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment In its present form, it doesn't directly identify the individual, which could be considered in breach of CSD A1. However, I'm seeing coverage of a biochemist of this name, who seems likely to be the subject of this article. If the article creator (or someone else, possibly me but I'm going out now) were to bother to put in some context, I'd be inclined to say keep. --Sturm 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


I just put in a whole summary of his personal life and professional background, but it was deleted. I am reinserting. Adil Shamoo is my stepfather and I am fixing his entry as a favor to him. He has the rights to all the info on his University of Maryland page, and I am using that as a basis for the Wikipedia entry. Please don't delete before I have time to finish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melby19 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I saw the deletion log where the other article was deleted as a copyright violation. If that is what you plan to post again, you had best clear it with admins so another editor doesn't come around and tag it again. As he is your stepfather, there are now WP:COI issues, although that is not grounds for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


It's not a conflict of interest to merely post information. Look through the article. There is nothing subjective there. Content from bio has been added (with reference), and bibliogrpahy has been reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melby19 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • That is still a direct copy-and-paste from the UMD site. That is a copyvio in most editor's eyes. That is not public domain or GPL'd material. Even though you claim that your stepfather "has all the rights" to that bio, I don't think it's going to pass muster. DarkAudit (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can rewrite the bio, but I need time. Please don't delete this page so fast again. I am moving as quickly as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melby19 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Follow the instructions on the tag, but cases of copyright violation, however well meaning, are subject to speedy deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not sure what the specific reason for this nom was but he has been published enough to establish notability [1]. Article needs a lot of work but someone will adopt it. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I also stubbed the article while the creator reworks it so it will not be a copy violation and risk speedy deletion. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article had been deleted as a copyvio of the UMD page, and I saw that it had been recreated when I was looking at the deletion log. The page as it was then was just the bibliography with no context as to who the person was. The subsequent edit was a straight copy-and-paste from the UMD site. That was when I tagged it as the copyright violation. The claim that the subject "holds all rights" to that bio on the UMD site is not a sufficient statement to forgo deletion for a copyvio. It's been changed since then, but has there been an admin action since the tag was placed? The tag explicitly states not to edit the page until then. DarkAudit (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, and there's still a copy of the UMD text in the page history. I've left the article creator some advice on the article talk page about releasing the text under the GFDL, which would clear up matters. --Sturm 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • According to my reading of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, the article need only be listed if it has no clean revisions. We have a clean revision. This ought not to be an issue, so I've removed the tag. --Sturm 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That was my bad for removing the tag when I stubbed it. I reverted back to the revision that was tagged as I should not have edited per the tag. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs work, and I'm willing to put some effort in myself (tomorrow). But the guy has enough coverage that, to my mind, he passes relevant notability guidelines. --Sturm 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite There is certainly enough notability--his principle book on research ethics was published by OUP, and he has been very widely cited. DGG (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Adil Shamoo submitted GND FDL info to me by email. How do I send that to Wikipedia to prove we can use whatever we want? I also have a photo, to be added shortly. Melby19 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • GFDL release has been logged in OTRS. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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.