Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peer Viqar Ul Aslam (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO the majority of the sources are self-published followed by passing mentions and quotes for the foundation. the only in-depth piece is on Gyawun which is from a guest contributor and clearly a puff-piece. This is in my opinion a vanity page, even the selfie smacks of auto-promotion. Article already deleted once but as some sources date from after best to discuss Domdeparis (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Looking at the edit history, it's mainly written by a SPA and their other creation, Save the Eyes Foundation, also appears to be of questionable notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep* you need to understand he works for an international news magazine, and also has so many media stories about his social work activities. Gamesofwikithrones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * per my message on your talk page, please could you disclose whether you have a personal or professional connection to the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No substantial change since the 1st nomination in December 2015. I mean, nothing in the article is suggestive of notability at this stage (being a journalist? being stopped by an armed officer in Kashmir? founding a non-governmental organisation? fundraising? having a thousand followers on Facebook? Please.) — kashmiri  TALK  16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@kashmiri you are clearly biased towards this person, you rigourously campaigned even last time against this page, I was asked to contribute against when more links Nd references add up, that's what I did, now you can't handle that even. If I have no relation with the subject but for sure you have some animosity because your comments suggest that! Anyway, I believe the discussion should take place, I will accept the outcome. @Dom Laos Gamesofwikithrones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have no links to the subject who asked you to contribute? You have only editied pages linked to this person and as such you have a WP:SPA. And be very very careful about you language which is threatening. Domdeparis (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , threatening other users, even if made in jest, is a bannable offense. Please do not do so in the future. Primefac (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing shows that he is actually notable as a journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable journalist Fails WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2017 (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.