Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaudhary Ghulam Hussain

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Ghulam Hussain[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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every journalist who exists in the world is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because his existence verifies in staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers — the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is his being the subject of reliable source coverage in sources he isn't affiliated with, such as other media outlets he doesn't work for doing journalism about him. But the only source here that comes even close to such a thing is a 15-word blurb of the "this is happening, the end" variety, which is not substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. Fails WP:GNG. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 14:54, 3 March 2019 (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.