Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Huzair Awan


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Huzair Awan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He is a 14-year-old child who a few years ago got some IT security certifications and some human interest coverage for it. There is no actual accomplishment and no reason to have this article. This does not even really overcome normal BLP issues, let alone extra precautions we should take to protect minors. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - wikipedia has a well-known, and embarrassing, bias against creating and retaining articles on notable women. I think there is a similar bias against young people.  I am afraid this nomination is an instance of it.  Being a prodigy doesn't make one notable.  Winning awards doesn't make one notable.  But having RS write about an individual who is a prodigy, or award winner, in detail, on an on-going basis, does confer meaningful notability. I think young Mr Awan's RS coverage measures up to GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above argument. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources. Satisfies BLP requirements. No valid reason to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 04:02, 23 April 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.