Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Mashwani


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Azhar Mashwani

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

The subject evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib  ( talk  |  contribs ) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  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.