Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doubtful notability, Google returns around 80 hits on his name (mostly links to a single YouTube video), none from notable sources except for one cursory mention of his grave location in a Pakistani national newspaper. Google Books returns a few hits on his name mentioned very cursorily in a single historical book. The Wikipedia article, unsourced and full of peacock terms, has been written by a single-purpose account (note the surname!) alternating with an IP editor (most likely one and the same person) who doesn't seem to care about facts or verifiability.  kashmiri TALK  22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Aside from the described editing problems, if the Sitara-i-Imtiaz award can be evidenced, that is probably sufficient for biographical notability? AllyD (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsure per WP:ANYBIO; but even then, English- and Urdu-language search does not return any hits (, امتياز"+"عبدالغفور هزاروی"). Most likely a bogus claim.  kashmiri TALK  08:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete- the article claims he founded Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat but doesn't provide any evidence. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat" also fails WP:N in my opinion, although no doubt an organisation by this name exists. Google returns just 42 hits for [//www.google.com/search?q= Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat] and 19 for [//www.google.com/search?q= Pasban Khatm e Nabuwwat], none of them from a WP:RS. I will tag that article as well.  kashmiri TALK  09:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if you think that organization fails notability, you ought to nominate it for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep He is notable as founder and first president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, a political party still an active part of a major parliamentary coalition 43 years after his death. By the way, we don't count Google hits when establishing notability, especially with regards to a person likely to have been covered in Urdu sources published many decades ago.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a god awful article in need of tons of work, but the founder of JUP - still a major player in Pakistan's legislature - seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Switch to delete after coming back here and reading comments from Zora and the Banner. Another reason is that there doesn't seem to be a corresponding article on Urdu Wikipedia; one would imagine that if the claims were substantiated, there would be one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not backed up by sources in the article. That is essential as an editor&IP with a COI (possibly even a family relation looking at the name) was filing the article with puffery and unsubstantiated info. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete If he had been a founder of a notable Pakistani political party, there should be sources proving this. Sans sources, his status as founder is mere assertion on the part of a possible descendant. Perhaps "founder" in family lore means that he made tea for party gatherings :) It is, of course, possible that the assertion is correct. If someone can find proof in moldering Urdu newspapers, and publish an article in a reputable venue establishing his party role, the article can be heavily rewritten and restored. Zora (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If his role was only to make tea, do you really think that he would be mentioned 16 times in the definitive English language history of that political party? That's strong tea.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm. I was basing my comments on the info that was available here, without searching in Google books. I checked the book that you mention. The two snippets that Google allow me to see of THAT book convince me that he was among the notables of the party. He is described as the leader of a faction within the party. Another book, on Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Pakistan, described him as a leader of the JUP. OK, leader. Out of how many? I'm not sure that he could be described as a "founder". I still lean towards DELETE, but if the article is kept, I would want it stripped of anti-India and anti-Hindu bias, of puffery, and of overstated claims for his importance. Does WP have other articles on politicians connected with this party? If he is kept, perhaps an effort could be made to add other articles, to give a more balanced picture. Zora (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.