Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasser Latif Hamdani


 * 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. after two relists, it's clear he is not yet notable. We need to document Pakistan more, but that applies to people there who are already notable  DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Latif Hamdani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page does not meet the notability guildelines WP:N WP:BIO and appears to be self-promotion. The person in question has no claim to fame other than writing for a few blogs and a occasional op-ed pieces in a local Pakistani newspaper. Barastert (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. You're right, the bio does seem to have been written by the subject. I dealt with vandalism and attacks on the subject a year ago, but hadn't thought to consider notability. Blogs and op-ed pieces are not sufficient to show notability. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. IF the article is written by the subject, it needs to be re-written. But to say that it is not notable is definitely institutional bias more than reality. We need to document Pakistan and its players more and better; not less.
 * "Institutional bial"? Can you please explain how this article meets notability guidelines laid out in WP:BIO. As far as I can see, the only thing he is known for is occasionally writing opinion pieces for a Pakistani newspaper that has a circulation of a few thousand and a few blogs that have even less readership. Being quoted in one BBC Online story of course is not sufficient grounds for notability. --Barastert (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * The job of an encyclopedia is to provide the context and background on topics that people might, conceivably want to know about. At a time when Pakistan and what's happening in it is regularly headline news everywhere in the world, we need to document the people, the voices, and events related to it properly. Rather than arguing what NOT to document, we should we trying to cover the Pakistani experience better. Does it make any sense that there is no Wikipedia article on Beena Sarwar, that the article on Ardeshir Cowasjee is rudimentary? YLH is an up-and-coming lawyer, activist, and columnist. He now writes a regular column for The Friday Times now. For better and/or for worse, he's one of the voices coming out of Pakistan and increasingly visible within Pakistan and, increasingly, the diaspora and the international press.--iFaqeer (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I sympathize with your sentiments, the job of wikipedia is NOT to "cover the Pakistani experience better". The criteria for having a page such as this in Wikipedia are laid out quite clearly in WP:BIO. Please consult it. You are correct that Hamdani is "up-and-coming". But as of right now, he is not a notable person worth of a wikipedia article. When he becomes notable then we can make a wikipedia page for him. Until then, we should delete this page. --Barastert (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, the basic criteria for notability of a person on wikipedia is (according to WP:BASIC): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material  which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There is absolutely no secondary source material on Hamdani, so the case should be closed. If you can provide reliable secondary source material on Hamdani then it should be entertained, otherwise not. --Barastert (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this page should be deleted, as after being listed for over 2 weeks, no one has given rationale to keep it according to the notability criteria of WP:BASIC. --Barastert (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2010 (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.