Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Jawad Asghar


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Jawad Asghar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently non-notable but has minor mentions in some external sites. l'aquatique [talk]  21:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity: executive of a company we don't have an article on. Article is mostly a list of his personal goals: good for him for wanting to determine the produce quota or whatever, but Wikipedia is not your C:\My_Documents folder.  And let's not even get into the silly Facebook-esque photos.  Ugh.  I thought we didn't have pages like this anymore. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

*Delete, This AFD debate is already decided. iam old user of wikipedia from the date of their creation, but due to away for some years.i forget my user name and create new one.i saw this activity; so thought to add my opinion. i will give you hundreds of biographies of living person who is not noteable but still is there in WP. but still this chap is 25% noteable in some areas. if admns desire to be deleted this page. delete straight away..why create this drama of Articles of Deletion. WP vision is to be change day by day due to different school of thoughts. -- USLeaks  t/c 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC) *** L'Aquatique, as per my point of view i think we can give some time and check whether its improve or not. The notablity question may reflect on different biographies, the reference which is mentioned is reliable on this article. if we can creat some groupism, then transparency factor should be effected. Every WP user have its own judgement, we cannot announced the results from the feedback of few users. i believe some points of notablity is there is this article. rest is up to you or honarable admns of WP.-- USLeaks  t/c 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Company he heads doesn't even have an article of its own. Content is either non-encyclopedic pep-talking, or puffed-up reporting on the state of the citrus harvest that is of interest to only a tiny set of potential readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not notable, but related to the same subjects as the socks in Sockpuppet_investigations/Azamishaque/Archive. Closing admin should be very mindful of possible socks.-- Terrillja talk  03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: While this article is slightly different than the previous article at Ahmad Jawad, it's close enough. Following an AFD for that one the article was apparently recreated enough to warrant salting. This is borderline CSD G5. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG, essentially biospam. -- Kinu t /c  08:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me. And WP vision is to be change day by day due to different school of thoughts... er, no, it's to create an encyclopedia about notable topics based on reliable sources. (But I'm glad my signature is cool enough to steal... complete with the timestamp. Ha.) -- Kinu t /c  19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * USLeaks, perhaps you can clarify your position- do you believe this article, irrespective of all others, should be kept or deleted, and why? l'aquatique  [talk]  20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Kinu. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the article is notable or not is what we are here to decide. Keep in mind that an AfD is not a death sentence, if awesome new sources come up or this guy suddenly becomes notable in some other way (i.e. record for most amount of fruit juggled) then you can go to deletion review, present your findings, and they will likely restore the page. The article is not really going to get deleted, more like hidden, as administrators can still see it and thus we can restore it to exactly how it was. I hope that allays your fears a bit. l'aquatique  [talk]  16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note I have struck out the comments above made by sockpuppet USLeaks, see Sockpuppet investigations/Azamishaque. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (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.