Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Arshad Khan


 * 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. This is a fairly weak keep, but there seems to be consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. There is a strong consensus that the article needs cleaning up to avoid issues of promotionalism and COI. Editors should feel free to remove dubious material and to stub-ify the article if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 01:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Arshad Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is not an article, this is an advertisement, either by the subject or by a totally biased fan. (Believe it or not, it's been worse.) Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Care to expand? Maybe here and/or on the article's Talk page? Or do you just have a vendetta against the article and its author? Sionk (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * reply to comment - read the article: it reads like something from a gushing fanpage. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a good reason for clean-up. Do you have a rationale for deletion based on Wikipedia policy? Sionk (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There are a great deal of words on the page but they add up to very little that supports notability per WP:ARTIST. The sources provided are for the most part promotional in nature and are either press release copy, fluff pieces of little value (for our purposes) or passing mentions. If we were to edit out the POV wording and aggrandizing prose, we'd be left with very little. Simply does not pass WP:GNG.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Very adverty, plus it fails WP: GNG with no reliable sources. Electric Catfish 17:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - poorly written and 'adverty' as others have said, but it cites a number of news/book sources so probably meets the minimum for WP:GNG. Annecdotally, there seems to be a tendency for 'flowery' language in parts of the Asian subcontinent, editors should be helping to increase coverage of this area and help improve articles, rather than delete on sight! Sionk (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (I accepted this article in WP:AFC.) Keep: the article lists several journals and radio transmissions as sources, and overall seems to pass WP:ARTIST. (Though I assume that these sources actually cover the subject, as I have neither access no language knowledge to verify it.) The promotional language seems more of author's poor language skills, and this can be addressed with editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record: it appears that I didn't accept it but I participated in reviewing this AfC submission anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Lot of promotional stuff now pruned/neutralised; self promoting photographs hid; he is an artist but artice highlights his social services with weak sources. Art work to be highlighted. There are number of sources, most of which can be checked by local language knowledge only. We may keep and watch. - Rayabhari (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep - Not particularly notable, but probably meets WP:GNG - needs to be edited because as it is now it has issues with WP:COI or WP:AB-- Itemirus (talk)  19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Probably meets WP:GNG but probably does not meet WP:RS. May be having other issues such as WP:COI and WP:Promotion. It is too promotional and needs completing editing. --Bharathiya (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally fails the criteria for creative. "He has painted several paintings," is the extent of the claims. Pure  promotionalism. Uneditable, because there would be nothing left. If this is considered to meet the GNG, it would be an excellent argument for deleting the GNG. But the sources, though ordinarily reliable, are in this case entirely the product of public relations.  DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think so the article is neutralized and is meeting the criteria to be in the wikipedia...!¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizaz Ur Rahman (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources listed in the article are enough to ensure that this passes WP:GNG.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, the article is in a poor state with COI, neutrality and advert issues but this are fixable; many were fixed since the start of the AFD. The sources present makes it pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST clearly. This article is in need of improvements, not deletion. Local editors from Pakistan can help regarding this. On the other hand, I see no rational based on any policy in the nomination and I doubt that User_talk:Orangemike as the nominator of this article, speedily deleted it without tagging or discussing.  TheSpecialUser TSU 22:13, 19 September 2012 (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.