Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Salim 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. Tone 20:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Shah Salim Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have nominated this article for deletion since it started as a mostly unsourced promo attempt later turning into somewhat negative article about a living person. I do not think that the subject is notable as yet. There's no indept coverage, and WP:GNG is not satisfied. Bare mentions in news do not make a personality notable.

Further, WP:NPOLITICIAN isn't satisfied two fold 1) because he is not a former member of the GB assembly rather a disqualified member. A former member is a person who has held the office in a previous term and the term has expired. This is the case of a disqualified member. So the criteria for being a former member isn't met, 2) because WP:NPOLITICIAN applies to members of a national, state or a provincial parliament. Gilgit-Baltistan Parliament, in question, is none of these because GB is not a province, rather a disputed territory that has some degree of autonomy.

Given that this article can only be promotional or filled with BLP issues, without imparting any value to wiki, CSD criteria G10, G11 and A7 apply. However, the CSD was declined probably because of disruption going on before hand. So I will like this to go through the AFD process and let the wikipedia policy prevail. 103.255.7.34 (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: IP request to nominate this AfD in WT:AFD, I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Gilgit-Baltistan was given self government status and as such its parliament counts as a regional parliament as it is a second tiers of government as per Administrative units of Pakistan. As such its members of parliament and former members easily pass the criteria. A disqualified member is still a former member. This is clearly an attempt by COI editorS to first create a promo article and then remove negative information and simply for that reason it should be kept as per WP:PROUD. There was some unsourced promo stuff I removed that could be added again and tagged as needing citations to balance out the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as passesWP:NPOL and WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources, as set out above this seems to be an attempt to hide inconvenient truths, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep For sure, but I am VERY concerned about the allegation of default and removal which is ONLY stood up by a news source which makes a claim which the target denies and then cites a primary source - a PDF purporting to be a court document, which is a direct contravention of WP:BLP "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Suggest this material be removed immediately. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have used it unless it had already been discussed in secondary sources and thought that it could be used to augment the secondary sources as per WP:BLPPRIMARY as it was being called fake news. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added another secondary source that directly talks about the court order to "de-seat" the subject. so I think the primary source can be used to augment this in light of the accusation that this is fake news. The parliament's web site also shows no name for his district. . There are sources that say he was elected sources that say he was disqualified but none that show he is still a sitting member so I think it is reasonable to keep the information about him having been disqualified. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or give him the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty) and mention the rumour/denial/confusion but wait for someone to provide a decent cite/source. The PDF for sure is not in line with WP:BLP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now added a total of three different secondary news sources that report his disqualification by the SUPREME APPELLATE COURT, GILGIT-BALTISTAN so I think there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that he has been disqualified. Whilst trying to find some positive stuff to say about him I found another story about his father having had him and his brother arrested over fake documents in a property feud   one of which also mentions that he was disqualified...I don't think I shall be adding this as per WP:UNDUE. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They're certainly a colourful bunch up there in Gilgit... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: the article is not really about a notable person if he was disqualified. I agree with the nominator that he is only newsworthy, not wiki worthy and should not have an article. Hassankhanonline (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Hassankhanonline (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep There's absolutely no precedent regarding WP:NPOL and "disqualified" members. A bit of a tricky one to figure out, but he was elected and then lost his seat due to a technicality - even if he never served, I believe the coverage would pass WP:GNG anyways (though I concur about removing the court transcript, stated above.) SportingFlyer  talk  10:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources say that he held the seat for at least a year before being disqualified so there is nothing to suggest he didn't serve. I don't have a problem with the removal of the court document as there are 3 different sources that mention his disqualification so long no one is trying to pretend that this is fake news now. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it. If he served for a year, I think he passes WP:NPOL. I don't see the WP:PROMO fail. SportingFlyer  talk  11:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, based on the history of the page, it seems as there's controversy as to whether he was actually disqualified or not? It's quite confusing. SportingFlyer  talk  11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There was one editor that was trying to claim that he had not been disqualified and said that it was fake news added by his enemies and then when presented with the court document they tried to pretend that there had been new elections 2 weeks after the court's decision and that he had been relected. I don't think there is any doubt now that he was elected and then disqualified there are enough secondary sources (3 seperate news publications). --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Holding the seat for a length of time and then being disqualified is not an NPOL fail — if he sat in the legislature, then he's still notable even if his election was later overturned. Once a person has been declared elected to the legislature, the only valid grounds for deletion after that is if an immediate recount reverses the result before the new government even gets formally sworn into power in the first place. If he gets sworn in and holds the seat for any length of time after that, then the election being overturned or disqualified at a later date, regardless of grounds, does not undo the fact that he still spent time sitting in the legislature as a member. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2018 (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.