Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jauhar Abraham

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jauhar Abraham[edit]

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

BLP violation not particularly notable person known only for one relatively minor legal action against him DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And unsuccessful local politician. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The entire article centered on a minor legal action against him, and that is of no encyclopedic importance. Wikicology (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither "ran unsuccessfully for a seat on city council" nor "co-founded a non-profit organization with no properly substantiated or sourced notability" is a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — so his notability is resting entirely on the lawsuit. But that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, whose relevance as an encyclopedia topic is so weak that I'm strongly inclined to consider this an outright WP:ATTACK page, meant to actively disparage and discredit him, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the right format to say my bit, but yes the bulk of the notability argument on this individual centers on the lawsuit. However, it's more about how that lawsuit plays into the shadowy politics of Washington, D.C. This is individual is politically connected and has worked with several notable officeholders and candidates. Expecting each of those respective Wikipedia pages to explain his significance instead of just linking to Abraham's own just makes more sense to me and more in line with Wikipedia's intended purpose and functionality. Moreover, this is an ongoing legal battle that could play a role in the Attorney General's race. In fact, candidate Edward "Smitty" Smith has already brought up Abraham in his ethics pledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambleon94 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but if the importance is still being revealed, it would be more usual for us to wait until the matter is further developed--see WP:NOTNEWS. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and fails WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2014 (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.