Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmood Haider

: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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Mahmood Haider]]=

:{{la|Mahmood Haider}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahmood_Haider Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mahmood Haider}})

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete Notability has not been established. A lot of fluff words. A lot of claims made in this articles are not referenced and hence vioalte WP:BLP. It was created by an editor who does not have any other edits outside this article. I suspect a Conflict of interest. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete insufficient evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete The sources given demonstrate this is a respected, but non-notable, working member of their profession. Nothing available in searches demonstrates their career has been significantly exceptional or noted in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. There aren't adequate sources to demonstrate notability when judged against :WP:NACADEMIC or :WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2017 (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.