Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakeem Muhammad Amin Soomro


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hakeem Muhammad Amin Soomro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable enough. Saqib (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nothing on him in Gnews. Created by an editor who's created a number of Soomro family articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * delete wikipedia is not a webhost for family histories. This person fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Fails NOR. Three of the four sources are broken, but looking them up on archive.org, they don't seem to have anything to do with the content. The fourth source is royal ark and only discusses Mir Ali Nawaz Talpur and not Soomro. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sourced nearly well enough to get over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is a strong enough notability claim to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrable GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A noble effort that seems to have been written in good faith, but the sources cited aren't substantial enough, or in a diverse enough array of reliable and mainstream publications, to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2017 (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.