Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Milo

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 September 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Milo

[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)

Unlike his more notable compatriot, Bernard Greenberg, there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure here. There's this, for starters and a significant body of published papers. Arabic and the Arab world tend to get under-covered in Western media, and Arabic typography is getting pretty esoteric, but we have this paper here that mentions him in context of Decotype and Egypt Today is RS and starts to squeak him into the room here. Now we add the Times of Oman and a piece that is non-trivial (just) and we're getting closer. I agree his notability is marginal, but he's influential and respected in his field. Now we add Arabic sources such as Atheer and Alaraby (not my favourite source, mind) here and you're starting to get close to a reasonable case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks more like a case of WP:BLP1E here since all coverage is about the digital quran and nothing much else about his scholarship. He fails WP:NPROF pretty clearly with almost no citations to his papers. --hroest 00:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milo created the World's first interactive online Quran. Milo mentions Wikipedia in the 2nd paragraph of the .svg article. I think he is interesting because he is the link between القرآن >> Koran >> al-Qurʼān. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything I could find is a passing mention for his work with Arabic font. I don't see anything that qualifies him under WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage consists of WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:59, 27 May 2021 (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.