Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rezaul Kabir

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rezaul Kabir

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Academicians WP:NACADEMICS. WP:NOTRESUME Charlie (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides summary information to a large audience (i.e., students, academics, scholars, journalists, policy makers) who are interested in academic work on several business related subjects / topics. The content of the article is credible as it includes references to published / verifiable / reliable sources. RRLV (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at this stage, notability is not established although he has a decent amount of citations over the course of his career so one could argue for criterium one https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=c_EQTfoAAAAJ&hl=en

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable citations in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see enough WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, which is independent from GNG and not based on in-depth independent sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 September 2024 (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.