Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hamid Khan (politician)


 * 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 keep. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Abdul Hamid Khan (politician)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable politician Biskut Merry (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is someone who passes WP:GNG. I think the article is more about him than the organization he leads or used to lead, Balawaristan National Front Hameed Group. At least one other group also uses the name Balawaristan National Front. The article is written from the perspective of the Pakistan government and leaves many questions unanswered, such as why he would "surrender" to Pakistan security officials. The article has a long and troubled history with abundant edit-warring. Editors may find it helpful top review the history of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The entire article contains only nine sources, most of them being about his organization Balawaristan National Front, rather than himself. The sources also give very less info about the person.  Mesha Nigo     (talk) 3:26, 9 September, 2021
 * Keep or at least refactor to cover his organization. At least one of them should have an article. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "At least one of them should have an article and refactor to cover his organization". What kind of reasons are these for keep?   Mesha Nigo     (talk) 3:55, 9 September 2021
 * When you have more experience than you claim to have, you'll understand. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received significant coverage in a variety of sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that both and  are block-evading sockpuppets: see Sockpuppet investigations/SajidMir2. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on sources in the article, passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2021 (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.