Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshad Ali (politician)

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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Ali (politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent any coherent argument supporting deletion. National chair of a notable UK political party is presumptively notable (or at worst a redirect/merge to the party article), and nom has made no perceptible attempt to comply with WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HW. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being the leader of a minor political party can be a valid claim of notability if the article is referenced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but it is not a claim of notability that confers an automatic inclusion freebie on an unsourced or badly sourced article. The sourcing here is not adequate to claim GNG: one of the references is just a raw table of the vote totals from the district where he ran as an MP candidate in 2010, so it counts for nothing toward establishing notability, and while the Guardian article is more substantive it's not enough to get him over GNG as the article's only source. Redirect to Respect Party; no prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced and substanced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz thinks that coherent argument is absent. Perhaps he is not aware about and has not read WP:NPOL which is coherent. The policies and guidelines have been defined so that everyone can follow them and we dont have to write an easy every-time we discuss anything. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. One of us hasn't read the relevant guideline, but it's not me. WP:POLOUTCOMES, cited in NPOL, states that "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable. You should be more careful, and not cast aspersions on editors who are more thorough than you are. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just made the article. There is more on Mr. Ali (like this [1]), so I need some time to expand the article. Deleting it now would be too early, since it is still work in progress. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known politician of (dis)repute. Szzuk (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Szzuk says, he's a Well known politician of (dis)repute. I just added a sourced sentence about how he spent time in jail after being convicted of election fraud. There are sources. And I fear that some of the editors who work on the Respect Party page may be inclined to try to airbrush Ali's ~~questionable~~ criminal past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is an enormous cache of articles at the Telegraph & Argus [2]. Article just needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2015 (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.