Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasneem Noorani


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Tasneem Noorani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not elected politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm  (talk)  18:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Interior Secretary of Pakistan is an extremely high-ranking national position in the Government of Pakistan. Clearly anyone who holds or has held this office satisfies WP:NPOL. Furthermore, he went on to serve as election commissioner for the PTI and got enough coverage just for that to satisfy WP:GNG.  An extraordinarily careless nomination.192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But there is no policy for such 'default keep'. Better show independent coverage which discusses her life. Störm   (talk)  13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not 'default keep'. It's "keep because satisfies a notability guideline."  Do you really believe there are no sources, anyway?  Obviously there are.  It's not anyone's responsibility to add them to the article just because you decided to nominate it for deletion without checking like you're supposed to.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep On 28 February 2018, I looked at this article and edited it to try to improve it. Added 6 new references to it including references from New York Times (newspaper), Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Reuters News Agency, Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune and BBC News. There was plenty of news coverage for the person from many independent sources to establish his notability. It's only a stub article that only has a few lines in it. Frankly I don't blame anybody for the nomination for deletion. In fact I agree with Störm  here that he is not an elected politician. Never was as far as I saw. He spent a lot of his life serving in the Pakistani civil service and held prominent positions there. Notability should be due to that service. Our emphasis should have been there, when writing this article. I just wish people who create these articles would spend a few minutes more in searching for news coverage on the subject in the Pakistani newspapers or take time to 'talk to Uncle Google' a little more. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources should discuss the subject independently which is not happening here. If she is politician then she has to pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO which she fails. We can't keep because she is 'BPS-22' rank officer (there are hundreds of them). Störm   (talk)  13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you explain why this person fails NPOL according to you? It seems like an obvious pass to everyone else.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Seriously this is not the same 'skeleton article' now that was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2018. I have spent time on it and have added 6 new major newspaper references both international and Pakistani independent sources as I said in my earlier comments above. His notability is due to his lengthy and notable civil service, which I backed up with my references.Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Presumed notable under WP:NPOL due to position. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I generally have a high standard (as we all should) for inclusion, but the article has been expanded enough to barely cross over the line for me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above all. The subject is not a politician and the policy mentioned in the nom is irrelevant here.  samee  talk 16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above all. Subject satisfies notability as has held several national offices of importance. (Regent007 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC))
 * Keep Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, cabinet-level and sub-cabinet ministers are usually notable. A permanent secretary, even though a civil services instead of political posting, certainly meets the spirit of what POLOUTCOMES describes as sub-cabinet. Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 13 March 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.