Talk:Nasim Akhtar (professor)
Appearance
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Nasim Akhtar (professor) (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 26 May 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Untitled
[edit]Hey there, everyone. Requesting peer review here, this is my first article that I'm editing. Let me know if anything needs to be added or deleted. I tried my best to follow the community guidelines. Thanks. --Ovebepari (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Contested deletion
[edit]This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (The page does not seem overly promotional and Vice-Chancellor's are generally presumed to be notable) --Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. This is my first Wikipedia article, glad I understood the guidelines. --Ovebepari (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
- Biography articles of living people
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class Bangladesh articles
- Low-importance Bangladesh articles
- WikiProject Bangladesh articles
- Old requests for peer review