Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Qavi


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Abdul Qavi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The subject is a cleric who is known for having affairs -- mostly one-sided -- with female models and affiliation with a political party. Except for one single source The News, all other available sources are just tabloid-like stories and gossipy news pieces without any in-depth coverage of their life as a cleric or politician. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's a part of me that could see a rationale for most of the information in this article being incorporated into other ones, but Qavi is notable enough on his own for this article to hold. I did some searches here, but my sources are going to be inherently biased towards US-coverage unfortunately -- I do think it's worth noting that the articles, although short, are about Abdul and the fallout of his decisions, and that he meets WP:NPOL's secondary criterion of receiving significant coverage. Some sources to add/that I found quickly include an AP story that I found in both The Boston Globe and some other papers from 2006 which talks about his photos with Qandeel Baloch that led to her 'honor killing' (sad story)., and an article in Dawn is about his family stripping the title of Mufti from him, and he's clearly the center of it. . Another article from Dawn talks about his suspension from his committees and the political fallout from his decision. . Nomader  ( talk ) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is not primarily about the subject.  and  are just dramatic routine news coverage. Yes, they are the center of all the tabloid news, but this is not the kind of significant coverage required for a biography. Insight 3 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, agree with the first source note (the Newspapers.com one) -- wanted to show that a search of US news sources didn't come up with much. But on the whole, there is a large range of coverage from across a large number of articles (both the Dawn articles I pulled here and in the article itself) along with the profile that you cited in your nomination that makes me inclined to !vote "keep". I think that although some of these articles are "tabloidy", they document a number of separate incidents and events (like him losing his place on a committee, him losing his party membership, him losing his title) that are different from what WP:NOTGOSSIP refers to, which are articles that focus on celebrity relationship scandals and gossip that's generally rumor-filled or unconfirmed. Nomader  ( talk ) 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep very borderline, but Pakistan coverage (Dawn, Pakistan Today, The News) is sufficient to get this wildcard cleric - reluctantly - past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The coverage in Pakistan Today and Dawn is not IN-DEPTH and THE NEWS alone is not sufficient as WP:N requires multiple sources. Insight 3 (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2023 (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.