Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurangzaib Farooqi

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. Clear consensus to keep. Participants have displayed proper arguments for a keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aurangzaib Farooqi[edit]

[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)

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. This one fails. Also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While he doesn't pass WP:NPOL, he seems to just about clear WP:GNG, in my view. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Not detailed biographical material, but attesting to his significance as a right-wing (possibly extremist) politician. Vanamonde (talk) 1:07 pm, 20 August 2018, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC+5.5) Now a firm Keep, after seeing this source which Ammarpad dug up below (an alternative spelling; that's why I missed it). Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but namedrops, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. --Saqib (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it is common for party leaders and/or spokespeople to be mentioned in numerous media pieces without any substantive information being provided, this isn't the case here, though the coverage is not great. We have a fair amount of detail; Farooqui is a member of an extremist party; he's contesting a certain election; some analysis gives him a fair chance of winning it; he's been arrested; his candidacy has been challenged legally; he was the subject of an assassination attempt; the attempt provoked a significant strike. This is enough material for a stub, and more than we have on most politicians who have articles simply through meeting WP:NPOL. It doesn't make much sense to refer to it as "name-dropping". Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've de-orphaned the page (he's mentioned in Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan). Vanamonde93 has found several citations. I've added another one to the article: a politician who survives an assassination attempt should pass WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 11:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He leads notable organization and won court case that was well publicised. Apart from all the sources by Vanamonde93 above, this exclusive New York Times' piece discusses him in detail, directly and virtually solely. Exclusive pieces like that are not done randomly for anyone. In fact, I read that article first, then thought I would find more information on his Wikipedia page, just to end up seeing terrible stub with AfD tag. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2018 (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.