- Adil Najam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Not a reproduction.And Person IS Notable Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (The deleter asked that I post the discussion here, after argument in Conflict of Interest).
I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created the article from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, Including the links which are from neutral non controversial sources. I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In the deleter's talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. This article was deleted three times. Once because written by the man himself, and seemed to be self promotion. Second time for NN (non notability). I was not able to see any of the deleted articles - would like to. But according to user:Equazcion the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around the person or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Wikipedia, because it was quickly erased. I proved the man is notable! Over 100 entries on the web from various sources, including books, sayings in his name, by extremely notable sources. Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The G4 deleted article, like the AFD'ed article, contained no sources. It also mentioned no new claims of notability. In my opinion a sourced article would be significantly different, but an unsourced article is not viable here. GRBerry 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It had sources for each and every sentence originally there, because I got all my information from online source. Ragib is claiming that the sources about prizes etc are all self created. But his presence in the media and on the web is undisputable, and followed and remarked of, by many people. Pashute (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn It is indeed not a re-creation, nor was it written by the subject, for it leaves out a number of the things that might in fact prove notability. It was rather written quickly from the web, just as Pashute says, & needs some additional work. At the time of creation of the original article, he was Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, This is a really important place, though it was just Associate Professor. Since then he has become Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future [1], also an important place. I thinks its a plausible claim to notability and a decent article could be written. The original AfD was before I joined WP. The arguments there were not substantive--it was judged vanity, and not considered whether or not he might actually be notable. I dont think it would be deleted now, even without the subsequent promotion. WorldCat shows that he seems to be editor or co-author of at least 10 books, including ones published by Harvard University Press & Palgrave Macmillan & Yale. They had not all been published back in 2006. Restore, & I'll help Pashute improve it. DGG (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I think that it would benefit from a broader consensus; in addition, according to the instructions (above), "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action)." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous Relist entries are worthless, Please tell us who you are! Pashute (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's hard to judge G4s without the benefit of seeing the deleted versions, so I won't try to. However, I would suggest that the nom work on a draft version in his userspace (at, say, User:Pashute/Adil Najam) so we can judge it by its own merits. The AfD was closed delete due to lack of sources, so the addition of some inline citations would invalidate it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist on AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I have temporarily restored User:Pashute's version at User:EdJohnston/Adil Najam, for reference during this discussion. I don't believe that this version overcomes the objections made in the last AfD. Najam himself I think may be notable, but I won't support restoration of the article until Pashute can present better sources than the ones mentioned here. Only the Globe article has much credibility as a third-party view, and it is more of a human-interest article. A second DRV after proper sources are found might be in order. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed Thanks, please take a look at last thread on bottom.
- Endorse Deletion: Article still failes WP:N, and previous objections to the article as described in the last AFD still applies. --Ragib (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, per DGG, original AfD was flawed in that the close was based on WP:VAN without attempting to verify WP:BIO. There were reasons to clean up, but not to delete. MrPrada (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion he appears to be somewhat notable, I found the original Boston Globe article and I added a bunch of stuff to the article. It still needs a lot of copy editing and sources for stuff like speaking in front of the UN. I'd have it marked as a stub. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Enric means he added more info to the temporary restored copy at User:EdJohnston/Adil Najam. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (this thread was meant to be under EdJohnstons Comment, sorry) Thanks EdJohnston, but why is a video showing him talk at the UN, not enough. Anyways, Ragib, I understand that Adil Najam's resume at MIT could be vanity, but how about Najam on UN website? Are his reader lists and book sales and quotes not enough. How about MIT report about Najam Nobel prize as first name on the list?. Does that not make Najam CV creditable, and does it not make him notable. I must mention that personally after reading what he says, I DONT agree to a lot of it, and I think he is controversial, but thats not a reason to erase him from Wikipedia. Pashute (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to find third parties that have commented on his work. The Boston Globe article is good. If we could find even a single additional in-depth article on him, that might tip the balance for me. His speech at the UN is a work authored by him, and that's not sufficient to show notability. You could search for *reviews* of his books to see if they are well-regarded by others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In Indian(!) news - or maybe thats the problem..., Here's his book in a Bradley University course sylabus!Pashute (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the interview mean anything? I myself have been interviewed several times by several newspapers ... does that alone make myself notable? Being in the class readings is also trivial ... several of my colleagues and myself have written papers or articles taught at 1 or more class lectures in several universities. Such random links does not prove anyone's notability. --Ragib (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you receive a Nobel Prize, and has a report written by you been endorsed by the Bush administration and written about in the Boston Globe? He obviously does excelent PR for himself, but thats what all academics do to save them from obscurity, and make them Notable. Pashute (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a fallacy to claim that Najam received the "Nobel peace prize". To give an example, in 2006, Grameen Bank and Muhammad Yunus received the nobel peace prize. Now, if someone claims that, all executives, officers, and owners of Grameen Bank are therefore Nobel prize winners, that will be entirely a misstatement. I was commenting on the "interview" and the "class lecture" you mentioned above, so please stick to that when you are replying to that particular comment. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the "MIT report" cited above is actually a flyer for a talk put together by "Pakistanis@MIT" and "MIT South Asian Alumni association". Not really any official "MIT" endorsement. --Ragib (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ragib, First of all thanks, I'm finding it real interesting. He was interviewed on CNN twice at prime time. He is mentioned in well established newspapers more than 10 times. In the entry I wrote: "He has earned a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other scientists on an international climate change council". In various newspapers he is depicted as a prominent member of the IPCC (especially in the various institutes where he teaches). You got me looking again at MIT. Your right, and I'll change that in the ref note, but still at MIT World site, the IPCC was invited to a panel, with Adil Najam as panelist (third on list) depicted as the Boston University Pardee Center director, discussing the future of IPCC, where he took the stance of actively perscribing solutions. Pashute (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EdJohnston: Here's a book review from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Z5FVKSO4GPGS. Ragib, I added "Controversy" to the page. Please take a look there. (fantastically, an Anti Muslim site claims he is pushing himself into talk shows without being a true expert). He is at least notable on the WEB, leaves a strong imPRESSion... to that you agree, no? Pashute (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A reader review of a book on Amazon is considered to be self-published material, and can't be cited in an article. Please continue to look for reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
