Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farheen Hakeem


 * 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 redirect to Green National Committee. Consensus is that notability criteria are not met, but there is a sensible redirect target.  Sandstein  07:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Farheen Hakeem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:BLP1E, WP:SOURCE, WP:BASIC, WP:1E, and WP:NPOL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. There is a potentially valid notability claim here as a co-chair of a political party, if she can be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it — but there's nothing here that hands her an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and with two sources that namecheck her existence in the process of being about subjects other than her, one piece of purely local coverage in her own hometown media and just one source that's substantively about her and more than local, that's not enough sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: In a case like this, my preference would be to find a suitable merge target; however, the most suitable one would likely be Green National Committee, which would only need Hakeem's name, dates of service, and an associated source/reference. The main obstacle to clearing WP:GNG seems to be the criterion for significant coverage. There are plenty of passing and/or trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g., , and ). The only independent source with significant coverage that I could find was , which is already cited in the article. ( and also provide non-trivial coverage, but are not independent.) ebbillings (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * delete I saw this and thought hijabi-with-serious-political-accomplishments easy keep. But I have come around to Nom's perspective. News coverage and accomplishments are scanty/minor, and petered out several years ago.  note that some search hits in American newspapers on "Farheen Hakeem" are unrelated to this individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2018 (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.