Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ihsan Khan (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. General opinion is that this is a WP:BIO1E and the sources presented do not prove otherwise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsan Khan[edit]

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

Article has sources but fails to provide any WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - As it stands, the article is pretty weak. The references are pretty lousy, the office held is not enough to pass WP:NPOL, and the allegations of vote-buying need to be very reliably sourced or removed to meet WP:BLP. That said, it sounds like there could be a decent article to be had, since the story overall (Pakistani expat cabbie wins millions, returns to start political career, helps out in the aftermath of horrible disaster, etc.) is unique enough to be worth documenting.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like an autobio..previously deleted through AfD... a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician .. sources cited are not reliable enough. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's certainly some potential, as there's more substance present here than some of the other articles about Pakistani nazims that are concurrently up for discussion, but the sourcing for it isn't solid enough to pass WP:GNG. Of the five sources here, two are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, two are deadlinks whose content is impossible to verify, and the only one that's both live and reliable is a mere blurb. There's simply not enough valid or substantive reliable source coverage being shown. For what it's worth, I've already poleaxed the unsourced allegations of vote-buying — such an explosive and potentially libellous claim belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article without airtight sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a followup, I was curious to see if there were any RS available and found several; I'm not sure if they are enough to salvage the article if added.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Where to for Lotto Winner? Back Home to Help His Town" - LA Times
- "Lottery Winner Helps Heal His Homeland" - ABC News
- "`Lottery Man' betting on Pakistani district" - Chicago Tribune
- "Lottery Wars: Case Studies in Bible Belt Politics, 1986-2005" (short mention in a book)

@PohranicniStraze: Thanks for this. You have done it neatly. I have no problem if other people agree. Greenbörg (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PohranicniStraze: Wouldn't this press coverage fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT? --Saqib (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I don't think it would. He wouldn't be notable for being a lottery winner due to WP:1E, and he wouldn't be notable as a nazim because it doesn't meet NPOL, and he wouldn't be notable just for the disaster recovery under 1E either. But the totality of the story - lottery winner turned Pakistani politician who spends serious money to rebuild after a serious disaster - makes for notability in my opinion. But I am still fairly new to the AfD process, so I would be interested to hear what more experienced editors think. With reliable sourcing, and with Bearcat helpfully removing the BLP violation, I am willing to change my vote if that is where consensus heads.PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@PohranicniStraze:, @Saqib:, @Bearcat: The sources are for 1E so I will go with delete. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can close this AfD because of your involvement. Let an admin close it or an involved non-admin. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I was asking for final words. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (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.