Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masud Rahman: Difference between revisions

Masud Rahman

The user who has repeatedly submitted this article to wikipedia refuses to accept my opinion that it is unencyclopedic and non-notable. I have therefore decided to open it up for debate among other users. See User talk:163.1.227.76 Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Has a strong autobiography feel. Undergraduates discovering drinking and sex are non notable. Secretlondon 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the papers of Masud Rahman are linked to this page I suggest this rather unnecessary commotion will wither away. Furthermore, comments about 'drinking' and 'sex' are highly offensive and completely unsupported by the content of the article. 163.1.227.76 23:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear autobiography. Most of the article is about his friends. If he really deserves an article then the article will talk about his notable work in physics. Secretlondon 23:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The biography does indeed have a surprising focus on his private life, but, as I just suggested, links to Mr. Rahman's papers are currently be prepared for the page. Furthermore, an anaylsis of the psychology behind his esoteric and meritous work at such a young age is highly valid. 163.1.227.76 23:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I too added at least two speedy deletes to the page and continue to think it should go without debate. The author is non-notable, non-encyclopedic, vain. For the author's reference - here is what Wikipedia is not. -Splash 00:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, for chrissakes... If Mr. Rahman at some point establishes himself as a brilliant, young noteworthy scientist by actually, y'know, accomplishing something, he's welcome to his Wikipedia entry. For now, he's just this guy. Delete this silly shit. -- Captain Disdain 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I get 182 hits on ADS, but most are definitely not this guy (diff first names, and wrong countries, not on quantum physics), and the others...can't tell if they are him. Right now this just seems like vanity. --Etacar11 00:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Avast! Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I object! I am trying to compile a study of a young, eminent scientist. Surely, Wikepedia is designed to promote the spread of knowledge about eminent people, in any field. Thus, I urge you all to stop hounding my page on Mr. Rahman; Wikepedia is no place to criticise the development of science, or the merit psychological profiles. Please take the time to look both at the content of the page, and this discussion before promoting the deletion of this page. 163.1.227.76 01:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, Votes for Deletion give you 5 days to convince the Wikipedia community of what you say and at the moment, they don't look convinced. Do a good job improving the page, and I'm sure the voting patterns will change. Carry on as you are, and you'll be lucky if the article is still here this time tomorrow.-Splash 01:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity article. Pburka 01:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Undergraduates are not 'eminent scientists'. Which papers has he published? Average Earthman 08:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clear vanity. Feydey 08:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• SAVE. Clearly not vanity. A very absorbing and informative article about a young Muslim male. Are all you guys anti-Islamic or something? That kind of sentiment is not welcome in Wikipedia. Be warned, this is a community for everyone. 163.1.227.76 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am an avid inclusionist, but this makes no attempt to be an encyclopaedia article. It is a personal web page. As far as Wikipedians being anti-Islamic, please reveiew the above comments. NOT ONE COMMENT has made any reference, allusion or innuendo to him being Muslim. Being Muslim or Christian or atheist does not give anyone a bye past normal Wikipedia standards. You could just as easily argue that people are being anti-British or anti-scientist. I think we're just being anti-git, and there's no law against that. Shame on you for playing the prejudice card. There is real racism and real Islamophobia out there that hurts people in real ways everday. Hiding behind that when you're just trying to get some free webspace is appalling. Ground Zero 15:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• SAVE I do not wish to comment on the previous comment's author, but to call himself, Ground Zero, clearly a reference to the 9/11 tragedy, and an indication of the author's support for actions taken by various governments against Muslim peoples across the globe, and yet still pertain to not be anti-Islamic, is disgraceful, and frankly, quite hurtful to me, and the millions of Islamic people in this world. Please do not print anti-Islamic sentiment on Wikipedia.163.1.227.76 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I presume the arguments about the article being unfounded are based on google searches and the like. In which case I would suggest that the author be allowed to compile the list of papers published to see if he merits an article. If people have a problem with the rest of the article, be bold, as I'm constantly reminded, and change it. On the vanity front, the same user is being accused of vanity on two separate pages, are you suggesting he's schizophrenic? Spaully 15:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Despite all his claims to fame and glory, he as so far produced one refernce. That is a broken link. By way of diligence, Google turned this up instead. Whether it is by the author is hard to tell (thuogh given it's dire standard it could be - and it's from Oxford Uni, where he's studying), but it's pretty clear that it is just an undergrad practical done badly. An eminent scientist should do better than that!-Splash 15:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• The name at the end of that writeup is 'Maksym Shostak'. Spaully 15:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The science that will, hopefully, be unearthed from Mr. Rahman could be noteworthy. User Splash seems to be letting his own vendetta against Oxford University (he is studying at Bristol University where many Oxbridge rejects end up) taint his feelings towards the article. Furthermore, his inability to access the link is not be due to it being broken, as I was able to access it. Jc57 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)