Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azim Wardak (2nd nomination)

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. When considered together with the previous AfD there is a rough consensus of policy-based comments to delete the article. No evidence has been cited that civil servants of his level are generally considered notable on Wikipedia in the absence of sources nor has coverage sufficient to support notability been shown. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azim Wardak[edit]

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

A first AfD was just closed after it failed to get quorum. The closing admin said that he "felt the delete arguments were stronger" but declined to delete the article given the low participation. He suggested re-nominating the article. So here goes.

My initial rationale still stands: this individual fails WP:BIO. He was an Afghan civil servant with a high position in the Ministry of Commerce (President of International Trade). This means that his name pops up from time to time but I have failed to find specific substantial coverage in sources using the Latin alphabet. The so-called references currently in the article are only able to confirm his job or his presence as one of tens of participants to this or that meeting. The rest of the content cannot be confirmed using reliable sources. For instance, the first reference in the article is this simple list of participants to a meeting but is used to assert that "He was able to hold office throughout this period thanks to his professional skills and the good relations that he built with his international collaborators.". Pichpich (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/RENAME: Searching for simply "Azim Wardak" yielded almost no results. However, the persons name is actually "Mohammad Azim Wardak." Searching this corrected name will get many more hits. I suggest we rename the article to "Mohammad Azim Wardak." Here are some links I've found concerning him:

UN publication confirming Wardak as the President of Foreign Trade of Afghanistan
Article by the IWPR which include comments by Wardak regarding sanctions against Iran

It is just incorrect citation/research on the part of the page creator. I suggest simply renaming the page and fixing other applicable areas. No harm done.--Ctoshw (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not new and at the risk of stating the obvious, all Google searches for "Mohammad Azim Wardak" will include the results for "Azim Wardak". In fact both links you give are currently used in the article. They only provide incidental coverage, not significant coverage that (to quote WP:GNG) address the subject directly in detail". It is common for spokespeople of companies and high-ranked civil servants to be quoted in the media. That does not make them notable under our criteria. Pichpich (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senior civil servants are notable. People in countries such as Afghanistan are unlikely to have such great coverage as people in similar positions in America or Western Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this pronouncement supported in any guideline or policy. I humbly suggest that this is because most of the resulting biographies would be impossible to source properly, even for 95% of the corresponding civil servants in the Western World. Mr. Wardak is a good example: if we stick to stuff we can actually verify, this will be a two-line stub with no future. There's no getting around the fact that he fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opinions are still valid on AfDs you know. We don't all feel the need to prove how incredibly clever we are by quoting guidelines at every opportunity. But if you insist, here are a couple: WP:BURO and WP:IAR. Of course senior civil servants are notable. Yes, that's an opinion. It doesn't make it invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's important to discuss things in relation to policies and guidelines: it's what keeps the whole process mildly dysfunctional instead of chaotic beyond all use. I don't feel smart when I quote a relevant piece of policy, I just feel like I'm establishing a necessary basis for discussion. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the individual is a senior civil servant. Senior civil servants can be notable. But that needs to be established with coverage about the individual. What I see is insignificant coverage where he is being quoted; essentially a spokesperson. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no links of significant coverage have been proven to establish the notability of this person. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2012 (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.