Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haroon Janjua (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is to delete this article again, as there are no reliable/notable sources of information that verify that this journalist meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Haroon Janjua
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobio of this user. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  05:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Journalists are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they either pass WP:JOURNALIST or basic GNG. This one fails at both end. In the pervious AfD, it was argued that the subject won a award "2015 United Nations Correspondents Association" but it is not a significant or notable award (at-least by WP standards because the award has no WP entry). Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG. I believe journalists wins some sort of awards due to their nature of work but its the notable awards which counts. --Saqib (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - getting a silver medal (second place, per the source itself) where the award has not been shown to be notable cannot be a claim to notability. GNG is also not met. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. [1] Less than two months between 2 AfDs. This one was opened less than a month after the previous was closed! A year is a good period to reconsider. [2] Nominator points at WP:COI but that by itself is not reason for deletion. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a not valid argument to keep the BLP. can you establish WP:N? --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! This has been done last month. The article was discussed and kept. So mine is a procedural keep. Very valid. gidonb (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was kept because there was no consensus. --Saqib (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! There was no concensus to delete. Starting a discussion within a month from a failure to bring about a consensus to delete smells not good. It has the scent of forum shopping. Our policy is against it. For good reasons! gidonb (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is WP:FORUMSHOP. This nom is made by not same user (me). --Saqib (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Same user would be more serious. That much is true. But even another user should take care not to raise an issue so often. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok lets ping the admin who closed the previous AfD and see what xe has to say on this. --Saqib (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion it's awkward to try to undermine someone's excellent summary last month (!!!), then ping him/her to comment on this. In a good case scenario s/he doesn't personally mind but it is still a bad idea to discuss articles this frequent. As I said, it has the appearance of forum shopping. Now if nominator had a particularly good reason to try to undermine the previous work a month later, explains why s/he must, why this is stronger than him/her, this is one thing. But s/he doesn't even spill as much as one word on the fact that this a super fast relisting. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 25 May 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.