Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadi Nur

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 delete. Proto::► 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadi Nur

Hadi Nur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nom & vote...
Del on this research chemist in his late 30s. Google-test result

184 of about 842 for "Hadi Nur"

and

39 of about 124 for "Hadi Nur" mesoporous OR zeolites

(those being simply the first two potent-sounding search terms that caught my attention) suggest to me no great inflation by hits on his non-professional interests, but a competent and serious scientist who has not risen to notability, at least so far. (I can't, BTW, recall ever feeling so compelled -- perhaps via {http://www.ibnusina.utm.my/~hadi/index1.html his science bio} -- in an AfD, let alone one where i'm the nom'er, to express my sense that i'd personally like having him as a WP colleague, or (very hypothetically) as a scientific one or other acquaintance.) I've no sense that he's a poseur or that he's done anything more discreditable than (if this is indeed an autobio) failing to grasp instantly what WP is about, but i think his notability is at best in the future.
Jerzy•t 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article was created by Hadinur, which is a user page almost identical to this article. Pretty clear conflict of interest. --Wafulz 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - autobiography, fails WP:PROF. MER-C 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the author has blanked the page, likely meaning concession.
    -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)
    • Since that comment at 07:17, 1 December 2006, further edits by the original editor paint a more more obscure picture, FWIW.
      --Jerzy•t 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agonizingly close delete - per Jerzy. Ghits show a scientist just below line of notability. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • changing to nuetral per endless blue; this one is too close for me to vote in Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak delete - taking his site at face value (and assuming good faith), I would barely conclude that he would satisfy WP:PROF for Indonesia, but he is the author of the article itself, which is a conflict of interest. So it goes slightly below the "keepability line" here. I would not object to a well sourced, third party, article about him, though. B.Wind 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity article. MrHarman 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has published a reasonable number of technical papers, two of which I found and added. Endless blue 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is quite obviously, and admittedly, written by Hadi Nur himself. Fails on grounds of WP:AUTO. It also fails on WP:PROF as although his contributions are scientifically sound, they are not notable, as evidenced by the lack of links to this page from the articles describing his field of interest. I would also like to point out that he has no more publications than I do. And I am not notable (but I am modest!). DrKiernan 15:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • reluctant delete the publications would be enough if he held a more notable position than just "lecturer". Dr.K, if you think your own are any good, and that your work or position is notable, perhaps a friend of yours might like to write an article. ;) DGG 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." DrKiernan 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To argue that here is wildly inappropriate. I am a deletionist with mergist tendencies (and the nominator for this AfD), but i regard this as a poster child for the inclusionist parody of what deletionism is.
  1. The purpose of CSD is to identify conditions that one admin, or one user of any status subject to the cooperation of one admin, can safely use to ID many articles whose deletion will not be controversial (thereby relieving the burden on AfD, & on its kin for non-article pages). The AfD process patently shows this article to be controversial -- even tho the consensus for deletion is forming -- and the decision to speedy it would have been an error (tho we can foresee its AfD deletion).
  2. The language (emphasis added) "this can be taken as a deletion request" was chosen even tho the language "is the equivalent of a shoot-to-kill-on-sight order" was clearer and available. If the page had been deleted while blanked, its speedy deletion would have been appropriate, but the original editor could then have started from scratch using the same title (in contrast to following an AfD deletion, since that is normally a decision that the topic the title implies is not suitable for an article). It was not deleted, and now it has become crystal clear that no such request was intended, and that the original editor has either reconsidered, or stuck to an intention to start from scratch, as is fully appropriate.
--Jerzy•t 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-authored, so CoI, and per DrKiernan. WMMartin 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, CoI.... Ah, conflict of interest. IMO, cause for reduction to an NPoV stub, but for not deletion.
      --Jerzy•t 23:55, 6 December 2006 (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.