Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asad Rahim Khan


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Asad Rahim Khan

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

At first glance, this appears to be a legit BLP - however, upon closer examination of each referenced source, it becomes evident that they merely mention the subject without providing sig./in-depth coverage. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib  ( talk  |  contribs ) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Television, Law,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Subject is not described as journalist and should not be measured in WP:JOURNALIST.

Subject is described as a lawyer and falls under Notability of attorneys guildeline provided in Notability (law), which says 3-4 factors are sufficent. Subject meets more than that. From the guideline:

"To be a notable attorney, a person must have notable accomplishments as an attorney, backed up by references that are reliable. These accomplishments include:

trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia
 * 3 cases are on wiki

being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law (see Mark Zaid and John S. Lowe)
 * NPOV reliable sources, Al Jazeera etc mention he is constitutional expert, coverage in The Economist on SC constitutional cases

service as a law clerk at SCOTUS or having clerked for another famous judge.
 * Clerked for Chief Justice/famous judge

service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency (example, clerk of a Federal court, chief court administrator).
 * Clerk at Lahore high court, which in US terms is a federal court

service as a general counsel of a large state or federal agency (example, secretary of state or transportation authority).
 * Attorney General office Pakistan

Also partially meets
 * teaching at an accredited college or law school, as a chairman or tenured associate or full professor (preferably a distinguished professor per WP:PROF)"

The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, Maintains a NPOV. Also in WP:GNG at least two referenced sources are in-depth with sig coverage and most are not in passing, with consistent coverage in the news over many years. Retinscn20 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Retinscn20 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You're not referencing a policy but a personal essay. How about I create a essay too outlining the criteria of WP:YOUTUBER, stating that one must have at least 100,000 subscribers to qualify for a WP BLP? I fear we'd end up with at least 300,000 new BLPs in just one day. And please refrain from misleading. The BLP lacks proper sourcing, contains WP:OR and in fact is WP:PROMO. You've to provide the references, which discuss the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. — Saqib  ( talk  |  contribs ) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * With respect I did not call it a policy. I called it a guideline. I am not misleading the discussion by pointing out that you have put this under WP:JOURNALIST, which the subject is not. You have not responded to this. We can have this discussion without being personal as WP:GD says.


 * Your point is understood that the guideline is not considered policy. It is still however a reasonable understanding of notability for attorneys, not journalists. If you would like to keep this to WP:GNG, that states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage has been stated in independent sources directly discussing the subject here here here . And more than a trivial mention has been included in leading publications Al Jazeera, Economist, Dawn. If not, rather than deleting it immediately, article can be improved to address concerns you have, which you said fits BLP criteria at first glance. Cheers. Retinscn20 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Fry, this isn't a guideline either. It's simply a personal essay as I stated previously. So, if you intend to assess this based on WP:GNG, I'm disappointed to inform you that the first two sources (this and this) are not acceptable as they are not considered WP:RS. Even the Tribune piece is just a column, lacking sig/in-depth coverage on the subject. Hence, it clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Working lawyer that practices in a high court, but still nothing for notability. Sourcing is either about the cases where this person is mentioned in passing, or written by the subject. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.