Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain[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)

~~Media hasn't covered Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain directly and in-depth, so this fails WP:GNG. Also, he is a judge of a local court so fails WP:NJUDGE. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The judge has received significant coverage as he was judge in a major case against former prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan sentencing him to ten years in prison. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share at least two in-depth references about him here. I couldn't find such references. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sentencing a head of state is often a significant event covered by reliable sources. Therefore, judges involved in such cases can meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. His action of sentencing Imran Khan attracted significant attention and coverage in reliable sources. This judgement of his is of historical and legal significance. That is good enough reason in my opinion of him warranting an article.

One such example could be of Judge Richard Goldstone, who served as a judge in South Africa and later chaired the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict in 2008-2009. His role in this high-profile investigation made him notable on Wikipedia.

If that is not an appropriate example, then another example of a judge who became notable because of presiding a case is Thokozile Masipa who was presiding judge in Oscar Pistorius trial.

As for more recent example, the civil judge Arthur Engoron who is hearing case against Donald Trump, already have an article since November 2023. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NJUDGE as he is a district court judge. WP:SIGCOV has not been shown, only passing mentions in the press. Broc (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of basing an article on news sources myself, but I seem to be in a small minority at Wikipedia. A click on the word "news" in the nomination reveals plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, certainly more than passing mentions and many articles focussing on the judge himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin AFD emerged from the actions of a blocked editor who misused multiple accounts and was not committed to enhancing the encyclopedia but rather had a distinct political motive. This editor engaged in numerous conflicts with me, leading them to target my contributions in any manner possible. This AFD was a result of their battleground behavior. I believe this AFD should be closed without any action due to it being created by a blocked editor. If we left their actions in good standing, it will incentivize the pattern of creating new accounts at will and causing disruption on Wikipedia, only to face a minor consequence of a straightforward account block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with the above arguments presented by Sheriff | ☎ 911 and Phil Bridger. I am also tired of seeing all these fairly good articles getting deleted on this forum. Articles that already have some good sources, like this one, should be tagged and improved rather than outright deleted...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (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.