Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attiya Mahmood


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Attiya Mahmood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability in being ambassador. Article relies on one primary source which merely confirms person held position. Watch as the keep !voters come forward with the invented criteria "ambassador to/from major countries are notable " and supply no third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, you called it. Keep, because ambassadors to/from major countries are notable. If you knew how this was going to go, why even bother with the nomination? Did you just want an excuse to vent? That seems point-y. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * absolutely no inherent notability in being an ambassador. Interesting this is your first edit in 2 months. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it "interesting" that I edit sporadically from a dynamic IP? I'm mostly tired of Wikipedia at this point, having started editing back around 2005 or thereabouts, but I still stick my nose in from time to time. Also, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, you need to present something more substantive than a "Nuh-uh!" Have you made even a cursory effort to look for Pakistani sources in Urdu, Punjabi, etc. to determine whether or not the subject actually meets WP:GNG? Or are you just assuming that because there wasn't much in the first couple pages of English results for a quick Google that no sources exist? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate existence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that essay was started with material rejected from WP:ATA because it was not policy compliant. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While this is true now that the nomination has been made, I felt it should be noted that your nomination did not follow proper deletion procedure, assuming that you did not take the steps that I listed. See WP:GD, which states, "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Your decision not to take those steps, among others listed on the page, undercuts the presumption of good faith in your nomination. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No ambassador is default notable. Ambassadors must pass GNG with quality sources, and such are entirely lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Figured it was worth pointing out that even without getting into Pakistani sources, which properly should be the first recourse for an article about someone from Pakistan, there are plenty of English-language articles discussing Mahmood's diplomatic work. E.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * all routine coverage and mostly saying things as a spokesperson of the Pakistan government. None of this coverage qualifies as indepth where Attiya is the subject . LibStar (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What alternatives to deletion did you consider as part of your WP:BEFORE preparation? Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What alternative questions did you think of in your preparation of the above question? An AfD has been commenced. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that was a real question based on both WP:Deletion policy and WP:BEFORE. What alternatives to deletion have you considered?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. Tushi  Talk To Me  06:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see enough secondary coverage here to be able to write an article per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2016 (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.