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 and WP:SALT. Consensus herein is clear that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and this article has been recreated three times (see deletion log). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilnawaz Qamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deleted thrice now with obvious signs of no notability or anything significant and, at best, absolutely nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per my original tag to this iteration of the article. Not even a claim of any kind of significance here. Provided references are articles written by the subject--I found no references saying anything about the subject. --Finngall ^talk 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 2 claims of significance: Teaching at a notable university, and writing for a notable newspaper. Adam9007 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliably sourced to...? Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt fails all aspects of notability. No suitable refs. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those are speedy criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable psychologist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt given the numerous deletions now and yet there being no actual differences, worse when it's still do blatant hence delete as this is sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt - Speedy deletions abound, this is purely not a topic that has encyclopedic value at this time. -- Dane ^talk 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person is entitled to have an article just because she can be nominally verified as existing — reliable source coverage about her in media must be present to carry a claim of notability that passes WP:JOURNALIST. But exactly none of the "sourcing" here does that: as noted, all of the offsite links here are to content where she's the bylined author of the piece, and none where she's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (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.