Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inam-ur-Raheem


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Inam-ur-Raheem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOTNEWS, BLP1E and VICTIM applies to this article with only 3 refs all from November 2012. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep- Two legitimate sources, The Nation and NYT.-Splinemath (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing notable there, doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you even tried to find coverage? Störm   (talk)  05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Störm, not my job, we go on what's there. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep notable as lawyer and is known for his activism. He is now abducted again and there is ton of coverage . Störm  (talk)  05:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, based on the stub of an article present. Not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Passing trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reviewers - please take a look at the "new" version of the article thanks to 's labor. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
 * Comment - Please note, I have expanded the article to reflect recent developments. His case is pending in the Supreme Court. Störm   (talk)  16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage is sufficient and the article has been expanded significantly since it was listed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete still not seeing enough there to satisfy WP:GNG. All a very local perspective with no wider notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have already voted. Please, take care. Also, the nominator happened to be a sock and is now blocked. Their vote doesn't count. Störm   (talk)  09:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am voting on the "new" version. Take care yourself. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2020 (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.