Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Fahim Dashty


 * 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. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad Fahim Dashty

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Lack of sources in reliable publications. There are a few mentions here or there, but that is to be expected from a journalist. But overall, he doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. NW ( Talk ) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Seems very significant as a journalist wounded in action, so part of the story on his own, besides being a probably notable journalist on his own. "When Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated in northern Afghanistan two days before the September 11 Attacks, Dashty was working on a biography of the late commander, and was injured as well." I recall reading about this case. I think there is significant coverage. The AFD proposal, by the way, appears to be bad-faith in the sense that the proposer is going around on a random set of articles that a different editor blanked as part of a weird campaign, and which i unblanked. I don't expect the proposer knows anything much about this random topic area (nor do i). But, I am not making major edits like blanking or proposing AFD. And i am not disrupting wikipedia to make some point about there being imperfect articles out there. Bottom line about this one anyhow: seems significant; nominator mentions there are news mentions to be found. I oppose deletion. --doncram (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  chat 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject seems to be usually known as . Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.