Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Baig Mirza


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Shahid Baig Mirza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just commanding a corps won't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SOLDIER as a general. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He is not a General but a Lt General. I don't think WP:SOLDIER covers Lt generals. There are many serving in the Army. I don't think we can have an article for all of them...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "General" is a generic term referring to all officers from brigadier-general up. WP:SOLDIER covers all general, flag and air officers, as it quite clearly states. It even covers brigadiers and commodores, who hold equivalent rank. He is easily senior enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable at this time as shown in this very short stub. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a general officer. They're all covered by WP:SOLDIER, even brigadier-generals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp But WP:GNG applies right..? The officer should be covered in a secondary source other than the news of his appointment...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally we make the assumption that such senior officers will be covered in sources. Remember that doesn't have to be online sources. We never delete articles on officers of this rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any sufficient coverage except the news about his appointment. Just being a general won't guarantee the notability. If that's the case we are opening a Pandora's box. There are hundreds of generals in Pakistan Army alone. Do you support an article for all of them..? -- Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be hundreds of general officers in the Pakistan Army, but according to List of serving Generals of the Pakistan Army there are only 31 with the rank of lieutenant general or higher, such as the subject under discussion here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my point too. There are about 31. Not all of them have the notability for a standalone article. – Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are opening no Pandora's Box, since we have already had the policy that all general officers are notable for years. We have thousands of articles on British and American general officers alone. Any particular reason that Pakistan should be an exception to that rule? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not an SNG, and is subordinate to WP:GNG. No secondary sources have been presented at this AfD that discuss the subject directly and in detail, thus the subject appears to be non-notable and the article should be deleted. A technical SOLDIER pass does not "absolve" an article from the requirement to cite RS to demonstrate notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only sources I can find relate to his appointment to Lt-Gen position. This information is adequately covered in this list. I agree with the above that WP:SOLDIER is subservient to WP:GNG, but SOLDIER itself sets a bar of "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". At present I would consider this person to be non-notable by SOLDIER or more generally. |→ Spaully τ 11:48, 28 December 2016 (GMT)
 * Keep - Following the expansion by @Clarityfiend I feel the article provides evidence of notability that now meets SOLDIER. I clearly need to improve my searching! |→ Spaully τ 15:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Lieutenant general is a high rank, plus there are a few other bits about him: a previous posting, his family, receiving the Hilal-i-Imtiaz, Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the fact that the deleters do not claim fluency in Urdu, Pashtun, Punjabi or other languages of Pakistan makes me suspect that they have not identified all potential sources. However there are enough sources, and being at the level he is in the military is clearly enough to pass notability guidelines. Deleting this article would add to systemic bias. We would never even try to delete an article on an American with this level of military standing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Soldier at the minimum, also likely GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:12, 2 January 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.