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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffor Ullah[edit]

Jaffor Ullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This scientist appears not eligible for inclusion: the major criterion is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and not necessarily "has written many published works". To prove this, sources claiming this should be provided. Peter O. (Talk) 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any secondary sources on Google. Epbr123 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers are not looking in the right place to see where Dr. Jaffor Ullah had published his peer-reviewed articles. These could be found in NIH's PubMed database. One has to search using the name Abul H. J. Ullah. Dr. Ullah had written news analysis on Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Islamic Fundamentalism. These could be searched using Google, Yahoo, and other search engine. [user:Jaffor Ullah]

• Advice:It is the job of the eds who wrote or who are supporting the article to find those articles, pick the 5 most recent or most highly cited, and put them into the article. As PubMed is freely available, you can do it. You can also go the the sites you mention and select a few particularly long or important non-technical articles and put in links to them. I am, frankly, tired of finding references for article eds. who can do it themselves. When it's WebofScience, then I don't mind, and others will help for the ones they can access.

It is also the job of the ed. who wrote or is supporting the article to make sure that the alternate forms of the name have been added to the article. The place to put them is immediately after the first sentence. Write the article on the article page, not here. It is the article that has to show the notability, and then it will never be nominated for AfD in the first place.

Once the information is in the article, then people here can judge if he seems important, using the appropriate WP criteria for authors for the non technical papers, and scientific authors for the technical work. Assuming they do show that, I can help explain to people why the publication of an appropriately high number of science journal articles in major publications that are cited by secondary services is notability. PubMed (and WebofScience, etc.) are authoritative edited non-indiscriminate secondary sources including only material that has been peer-reviewed by two or more experts in the subject.

I apologize for sounding a little snappy. DGG 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not notable--Sefringle 03:40, 27 March 2007 (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.