Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuffar Haq

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zuffar Haq[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. With an up coming General Election in the UK, this is pure election campaigning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page can keep if/when Haq is elected. Meatsgains (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN there is no inherent notability in being a party's candidate in a upcoming election. FITINDIA 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates for political office — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article because of the election per se. But this neither establishes nor sources any reason why he would have qualified for an article for any reason independent of the candidacy, and it's quite plainly tilted at least somewhat in the direction of being a campaign brochure (vice-chair of the local Crimestoppers chapter? Who cares?) No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if he wins his seat, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 May 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.