Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Nasim Faqiri


 * 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   keep. causa sui (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Nasim Faqiri

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No proper references —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing administrator -- some wikipedians who weigh in with a deleted early in a discussion in the deletion fora make a point to check back later, to see if the article had been improved in ways that addressed their concern. Others don't.  Given that this article has been almost entirely rewritten since Gun Powder Ma left their delete opinion, I suggest their delete should be discounted.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now has some references, and there seem to be many more on the Internet. This seems to be a work in progress, with major cleanup and expansion still needed. Peter Chastain (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have commented-out most of the references, to articles that mention Faquiri but do not support material in the article. Notability is established, IMO, but the article is seriously deficient. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- plenty of references exist to document this individuals notability. Geo Swan (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Could our nominator please explain why they gave the complete newbie who started this article barely ten minutes, prior to nominating the article for deletion? Surely it would have been better for the project if our nominator had spent 30 seconds conducting their own google search, which would have informed them that an article on Mohammad Nasim Faqiri could fulfill our requirements for notability?  Surely it would have been better for the project if our nominator had offered advice to the newbie who created the article?  For a first attempt this was a noble attempt.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I`ve struck most of my comment as I see from the nominator`s talk page other contributor`s have already raised WP:BITE there. Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: a few passing mentions, generally as a spokesman of this or that organisation, and mostly in 2005 (almost nothing before or after that year), does not add up to "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy was a delegate to a Loya Jirga -- an emergency institution unlike those used in established democracies. We apply special notability rules to individuals who are representatives to national legislatures or state/provincial legislatures.  A Loya Jirga is of comparable importance to the Wolesi Jirga and Meshrano Jirga -- the lower and upper houses of Afghanistan`s national legislature.  In fact the previous Loya Jirga of 2002 wrote the current constitution.  So, I suggest, being a representative of a national Loya Jirga is of comparable importance as being a representative to the Wolesi Jirga and Meshrano Jirga.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's "special notability rules" apply to individuals who have been elected to serve on ongoing legislative bodies, not those who (have been appointed to?) serve on a one-off "emergency institution" meeting. I would suggest that the situations are insufficiently analogous for the specific rule in question, as opposed to Wikipedia's more general notability rules, to be applicable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you have not correctly quoted WP:POLITICIAN, which actually says: "Politicians or judges who have held international, national or sub-national ... office". Note, WP:POLITICIAN says they have to “have held a national office”.  It says nothing about those individuals having been elected.  In the first N decades of the United States the 2 delegates for each state to the United States Senate were not elected.  They were appointed.  To this day when a Senator dies in office, or is otherwise unable to complete their term, their replacement is appointed.  Until very recently all the legislators in the UK House of Lords held that office through inheritance or appointment.  Similarly, all the members of the Canadian Senate still are appointed, not elected.  Members of Afghanistan's Meshrano Jirga are appointed, not elected.  Even in democratic countries, not every member of a national legislature is elected, but they would all still qualify for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN.   Note, WP:POLITICIAN does NOT say they have to serve in "an ongoing legislative body".  None of the members of the United States cabinet, except for the VPOTUS, serve in a legislature, but they would all qualify for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN, because they are all politicians who hold a national office.  The Appointees who hold a national office qualify for WP:POLITICIAN, without regard to whether they were elected.  Thomas Kean, the politician appointed to chair the 911 Commission would merit coverage in a separate article under WP:POLITICIAN, if he hadn`t already merited an article for being a former Governor, because his chairmanship was to a national office.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that being part of an ad hoc one-off "emergency institution" meeting counts as holding an "office" -- which is ubiquitously used for a formal position held over a length of time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and which office is it that you don`t think counts -- Thomas Kean, chair of the 911 commission, or Faqiri, representative to the 2010 Loya Jirga?
 * Should I assume you are tacitly acknowledging that WP:POLITICIAN does not require the individual to be elected? Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) The 9/11 Commission was in existence for nearly two years, so the two aren't particularly comparable. (ii) I would call referring to the chairmanship of it as an "office" to be more than a little of a stretch. (iii) I never asserted it in the first place -- but would suggest that elected offices are generally more notable than their appointed equivalents (so the issue might come into play in borderline situations -- such as this one). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 911 Commission sat for two years? So what?  If I have understood the references properly, Afghanistan Loya Jirga of 2003-2004 also sat for close to two years, as it wrote the current Afghan constitution.  Iraq's constitutional conference also sat for over a year.  So, sitting on the 911 commission is not an office?  Interesting.  Maybe you correct.  Care to explain why?   I cited the US cabinet secretaries as important instances of  WP:Politician who were all appointees.  It is a point you chose not to address.  Surely the least of them is more important than an ordinary Congressman?  Surely the most important cabinet secretaries are more important than even the most important Congressional committee chairs?  I repeat, they are all appointees.   Here in Canada Parliament appoints officers who hold great influence. The Auditor General is a very important position.  Our most recent auditor general was very highly respected, and, at least as important as committee chairs and the less important cabinet ministers.  Your assertion that elected offices are generally more notable than appointed offices is, no offense, a reflection of cultural blinkers.   There have been many times and places where appointed offices were, or are, much more important than elected offices.   The British Parliament gradually become more important.  In Tudor times appointed and inherited offices were much more important than Parliament.   In pre-revolutionary France the King was under no obligation to convene the Estates General, the French equivalent to Parliament, on an annual basis.  One of the triggers to the Revolution was that he had to convene the Estates General for the first time in decades, because his profligate spending was out of control, and raising new taxes required the participation of the people's representatives at the Estates General.   There are countries recently, in the 20th Century, now, in the 21st Century, where elected offices are not that significant.  Saudi Arabia, for instance.  The old Soviet Union had a national assembly, but it was a rubber stamp.   The meaning of your comment about borderline situations is unclear to me.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin -- could you please consider carefully whether the delete opinion of User:Hrafn should be discounted? Shouldn`t a delete only be expressed by contributors who genuinely think that an article can`t be improved?  The contribution history of the article shows User:Hrafn has been making substantive edits to the article, while it is before afd:, , , , , , , ,  Note the edit summary in the last edit: Rewrite to reflect what the sources actually STATE.  It seems to me that this kind of rewriting illustrates that User:Hrafn is tacitly acknowledging that Mohammad Nasim Faqiri merits an article, and the rewrites illustrate his or her concern over how he should be covered.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin -- could you please consider the fact that User:Geo Swan is talking WP:Complete bollocks. The fact that I believe that the article should reflect what the (minimal and insignificant) sourcing cited actually says, does not mean that I don't "genuinely think that an article can`t be improved" to a sufficient extent that it should not be deleted (particularly when said edits were in response to User:Geo Swan's removal of legitimate failed verification tags on the inaccurate material). None of said sources (or any others that I can find) give Faqiri more than passing mention, and none of them indicate that he has been anything more more than a functionary of one of Afghanistan's many political parties, who has apparently never held elective office, or a government appointment of any prominence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you place the phrase "complete bollocks" on your list of terms not to use. Ditto your cracks about competence -- they are inflammatory.  You are not a newbie, surely you realize how unusual your decision to both voice your delete opinion in the afd, and to make substantive edits to the article, is?  If not, I am sorry to inform you that most of the other contributors I encountered who made this unusual choice turned out to be pushing some kind of POV.   I strongly urge you to decide, either, that the article absolutely cannot be made worthy of retention, and confine your efforts to the afd discussion, or accept that the only way you can make edits to the article and maintain the appearance of good faith is to return to the afd and withdraw your delete opinion.  I strongly urge you to generally refrain from editing any articles, once you voice a delete opinion, at least unless the  afd closes as keep or no consensus.   You call Faqiri a "functionary" of one of Afghanistan's many political party.  Surely you are not continuing to refuse to acknowledge that he was the Party's Secretary General, not a mere functionary?  As to whether the Jamiat-e-Islami was merely one of Afghanistan's political parties, from my reading it is one of the oldest and most important parties -- one of the few lead by a former President.   You write that Faqiri has never held a government appointment of any prominence.  Surely you are not continuing to maintain that serving as a representative to the Loya Jirga is not a prominent government appointment?  Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the phrase in question is WP:SPADE for gross misrepresentation of my statements and actions. I would point out that neither tagging an article, removing a couple of words clearly unsupported by the citation (in an attempt to avoid excessive tagging) or moving a citation to reflect the full material verifiable to it, is unusual activity for an article under AfD. The rewrite of the lead sentence, as I have already explained, was a result of your removal of legitimate tags, and an attempt to avoid an edit-war over those tags. As to my use of the word "functionary", I would note that Faqiri's role in Jamiat-e Islami was so prominent and crucial that that article makes no mention of him. As to the Afghan Peace Jirga 2010, being one of 1,600 "tribal elders, religious leaders and members of parliament" attending a three-day consultative (not deliberative) meeting does not amount to a major political office. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute that I have misrepresented your statements or actions -- either grossly or in any other way. I continue to extend to you the assumption of good faith, and I am willing to assume that, for some reason, you really don't realize the appearance of bad faith given by your obfuscation of a key passage in an article you have already spent a lot of time and energy to get the article deleted.  As to whether your edits were triggered by edits I made -- sorry, the contribution history does not support your assertion that your tags were "legitimate tags".  Again I am going to extend to you the assumption of good faith and assume you don't understand the purpose of editorial tags.   Let me explain to you the purpose of editorial tags.  The good faith, authorized use of editorial tags is for contributors who think an article can be improved to signal their concerns and suggestions to other good faith contributors who think an article can be improved.  There are contributors who misuse editorial tags for editorializing.  They add them to express their feelings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  They have no desire to see the article improved.     I am willing to assume that the use of editorial tags to express feeling of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is so common you think it is a legitimate use of those tags.  But I suggest it is not a legitimate use of editorial tags.  I do not believe your placement of these tags on an article you have worked hard to delete is "legitimate", although I am happy to assume that you mistakenly thought it was a legitimate use of the tags.   Instead I think you should have either confined your comments to the afd -- or returned to the afd, and said you changed your mind, and that you now think the article can be improved to the point where it deserves to remain on the wikipedia.   WRT Faqiri being mentioned in the article about Jamiat-e Islami.  First, I am going to take your mention of the party as a tacit acknowledgment that you recognize it is not just another party, but is one of the most important parties in Afghanistan.  Second, the article needs a  lot of work.  I added an image that shows Mohammad Nasim Faqiri announcing Burhanuddin Rabbani's resignation on 2011-01-20.  So this concern of yours is no longer valid.   WRT the prominence of the Faqiri's appointment to Peace Jirga -- first, note that he was one of the limited number of appointees who was quoted by the media.  Second, once again, you are using your own personal re-writing of WP:Politician, when you suggest this was not "a 'major' political office". What is a "major" political office?  Which wikidocument usese this phrase?  None of them do. WP:Politician requires the individual to have held a national office.  The US Congress appoints a Poet Laureate.  If an appointee to the Poet Laureate office was a politician as well as a poet, even if they had only been a school trustee, then holding the national office of Poet Laureate would qualify them for the special provisions of WP:Politician.  You may not think this proper. And if you think that you are free to use the wikipedia's channels to get WP:Politician rewritten. Meanwhile, let's stick with its actual wording, not what you would like it to say -- OK?  Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He was the spokesperson of and is now the Secretary General of a major political party in Afghanistan.  D r e a m Focus  01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for this? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you really mean to imply that there were no references to back up that he was the party`s spokesman? I know you checked the references, so you have to be well aware that many of the references explicitly characterized him as spokesman or senior spokesman for the party.  As to whether he was appointed the Party's Secretary General in 2008, I didn't come across any references that supported this assertion.  But I didn't remove the assertion, when I spent a couple of hours trying to rescue the article, because I suspected the article's original author, whose name indicates he is from the region, had access to local media that would support that assertion.  The original author was the victim of serious lapses from WP:BITE.  I hope they return so they can help complete the article on this notable individual.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pajhwok Afghan News calls him the “general secretary of the party”. Geo Swan (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I tagged it for no proper references given, but now it has so much proper references and this article should not be delete.--—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2011 (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.