Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Ali (politician)


 * 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. If the election has to be re-done, this may indicate that WP:NPOL#1 isn't met yet. Apparently WP:GNG isn't met here yet, either, but as noted before we can have articles that meet NPOL even if they fail GNG. If people want to move this to draft they can ask on WP:REFUND, ditto for undeletion if Zahid Ali is elected for real in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Zahid Ali (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He was elected in July 2018 elections however even after a month, the election commission of Pakistan has not yet notified the subject as returning candidate. Fails to pass WP:BIO fow now. If and when notified, we can re-create the bio. Saqib (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: According to almost all online sources available, , , , the individual is an elected MP and meets notability guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN, we can delete it when we find a reliable source contrary to this. Until then, the individual is notable. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But chances appear slim if we read this news story. --Saqib (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On a different note, subject's correct name is "Zabid Ali Reki" as per this Dawn article and per his official FB page. --Saqib (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We cannot go by chances, I will get it deleted myself if and when we have a proof from reliable sources that he was not elected and someone else is but at this point according to reliable sources he was the winner. Sheriff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 18:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. But I'm of the opinion that in the absence of Election Commission's notification, the subject is technically (or if I better say officially) not elected. It's more than a month now. And we don't know how long the Election Commission may take to announce the decision. In any case, I would prefer to let this AfD run its course. --Saqib (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My point of view is a bit different on this matter. According to Wikipedia policies on sourcing and notability, once reliable secondary sources report win of a candidate, the candidate meets the notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN. Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) being the primary source in this matter can take their time to issue an official notification, it does not have any bearing on Wikipedia's sourcing policies as WP:RS does not state that the source must be an official source, actually it advises against WP:PRIMARY. If my point of view is accepted and the article is kept, here is what could happen in the case of this individual. ECP officially notifies in favor of this individual then the article stays, ECP notifies in favor of another candidate, I get it G7ed, ECP orders re-election, I get it G7ed. So, in my point of view, there is no rush to get it deleted while we have reliable sources supporting his win. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 19:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The ECP has ordered re-polling in the constituency as per this news story. --Saqib (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in the whole constituency though, just in 2 out of 98 polling stations which is just 2.07% of the constituency! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or procedural keep At this moment, it appears that the subject won his election, and will meet WP:NPOL. That said, since official certification is in flux, and the sourcing is adequate for the claim of notability, there is no harm in keeping the article until the result is determined. At that point, there could be a debate about whether the subject remains independently notable or whether it should be redirected to a page describing the controversy. --Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Enos733, Please read wP:AADD once again. specially WP:FUTURE and WP:HARMLESS regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The Election Commission has not notified and he is not elected officially. Chances are that he won't be declared as an elclected assembly member. So I go for delete. Although we can surely wait for some more time.Knightrises10 (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep In a very similar argument to the one I used above Keep - there is an interesting dispute about whether NPOL could be deemed to apply from winning an election (the same dispute could occur in versions of a winning candidate dying before taking up office), I think that there is sufficient coverage independent of that precisely because of the controversy to make it a keep. In addition to suggesting an individual article is appropriate via NPOL anyway, I think the nature of the event being about the candidate not meeting citizenship requirements that I don't think an BLP1E applies sufficiently to warrant this article not being appropriate either, with NBIO/GNG determining it. Nosebagbear (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He has been elected, passes NPOL. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Election is still disputed and just simply elected does not mean notable. see below. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FUTURE andWP:POLITICIAN. [Updated] he is not elected yet, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN, The policy does not say that every elected person is notable. Enos733, Nosebagbear, User:Editorofthewiki please note that It clearly states that the person must hold a nationwide or statewide relevant office (i.e. ministry) which this politician does not. Also he does not have the significant independent biographical coverage and not just minor controversial passing mentions to pass the WP:GNG, The links posted above only show that he was leading, no links presented to demonstrate the notability, which the subject lacks. Saqib and Knightrises10 have raised valid concerns. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While the policy does not say that every elected person is notable, one of the goals of this project is to be comprehensive, especially around individuals who are elected to a statewide(province-wide) or federal position (or hold an appointed statewide or federal position). Once a person who has been elected to a position that is notable (and we can find an official source confirming that position), we presume that individual as notable (because there will likely be reliably sourced, verifiable information about the subject). While in this case the official results are pending certification, WP:Crystal works both ways (we should not assume the person who is leading the tally is not elected, but we should be sensitive that the final result is not certified). Once the Electoral Commission acts, then we can review the notability of the subject again, but we should recognize that the controversy surrounding the electoral results generally adds more weight toward notability. (As an aside, this is not the first case where there was a subject who won election and not taken office. I remember a Senator in Australia [if memory serves], that came to AfD). --Enos733 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever your personal opinions are, Since there is no such policy that says Every person elected to State assembly is notable we cannot assume the same. So far the keep side has failed to show even one source that provides the Significant coverage to this subject. There is absolutely no policy based justification to keep it as of now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! WP:NPOL clause !! Pass / Fail !! reason
 * State/Nation wide office and legislature elected || Fail || No statewide ministry held and election not won.
 * Significant coverage GNG ||  Fail || No coverage other than passing mention
 * over all WP:POLITICIAN ||  Fail || above reasons
 * } -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of Pakistani politician pages are created based on WP:NPOL without subject having significant coverage after Pakistani general election, 2018, just because they were elected to provincial or national legislature. Unless we have information to the contrary, this individual is elected as per secondary reliable sources. Once we have a source confirming that he was not elected then we can delete it. WP:NPOL states (bold parts apply to this individual and make him notable): The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 11:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because some editors improperly familiar with the Wikipedia's notability policy WP:POLITICIAN have created a bunch of junk articles does not mean WP:Other stuff exists will be a reason to justify keeping more of the junk. You are clearly Cherry picking the lines in the policy to improperly justify your !vote. let me Quote the "Full" WP:NPOL policy for you. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges WP:POLITICIAN
 * Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.   Fail
 * Major local political figures who have received .  Fail
 *  local official, or an unelected candidate for political office,, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".  Fail -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you cherrypicked bits and pieces from the policies to show how he might be failing notability so how is it wrong for me to quote text from policy to show that he meets the criteria specified in WP:NPOL plus the whole controversy involving abduction of presiding officer makes his win more notable. So point number 1 highlighted in your comment is actually quite the opposite in reality:
 * Major local political figures who have received .  Fail
 *  local official, or an unelected candidate for political office,, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".  Fail -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you cherrypicked bits and pieces from the policies to show how he might be failing notability so how is it wrong for me to quote text from policy to show that he meets the criteria specified in WP:NPOL plus the whole controversy involving abduction of presiding officer makes his win more notable. So point number 1 highlighted in your comment is actually quite the opposite in reality:


 * The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.  Pass


 * In my personal opinion, I am against creating the articles just because of an election, if it was up to my personal preference, Wikipedia would not have articles for MPs and just for top-most national and provincial office holders such as Prime Minister, President, Speakers of National Assembly, Chairman of the Senate, opposition leader, and cabinet ministers at the national level while governors, chief ministers, opposition leader, and cabinet ministers at the provincial level. All others including MPs would have to meet the general criteria for notability but my personal opinion does not matter when it comes to the policy and WP:NPOL allows the creation of articles for these nominally notable individuals just because they were elected in an election. According to my opinion WP:NPOL is too generous regarding notability of these individuals. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NPOL#1 has 2 conditions to be met, there is AND clause. the politician has to be a minister (holding office) AND elected as well. I am not sure why you are unable to understnd this simple statement. And I guess people like you are not alone, so An extra line after #2 has been added to make this policy clear to such folks that , or an unelected candidate for political office, -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid your understanding of English language is wrong, "and" here separates the folks in two categories and not link them together. The second statement you are referring is not added to clarify this point but it is actually about totally different set of individuals. That is about "elected local officials" or "unelected candidates". The policy separately clarifies the notability criteria regarding elected national officials, elected provincial officials, elected local officials, and unelected candidates. First point states that elected members of national and provincial legislatures are automatically notable no matter the level of coverage they receive. The latter point clarifies that this same criteria does not apply to elected local officials and unelected candidates, their notability should be separately judged. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Policy nowhere states that "election to provincial assembly confers notability", it actually says that election by itself is not sufficient See the red font above. WP:GNG has to be met as well. If you want to misrepresent the Policy, it's your choice. The subject as of now is not even elected. If you have refs and sources to prove the notability. I am ready to vote keep, but they don't exist. hence the Delete !vote. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here local office ≠ national or subnational legislature. --Saqib (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly not going to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. WP:AADD is not an accurate argument. Capitals00 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Insignificant coverage to fulfill purpose of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of necessary coverage in WP:RS. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely tiresome to come to a deletion discussion hoping to close it, and to find that it has turned into yet another nationalist battleground. It is doubly tiresome to find that half the arguments are based on a complete misrepresentation of our guidelines. WP:NPOL says, clearly and beyond doubt, that members of a state or provincial legislature are presumed notable. They need to meet no other criteria. They certainly do not need to meet GNG. The only argument here that has any weight is Saqib's original argument that Ali may not, in fact, have been elected; but to that, we can only go by what the sources say. At the moment, I see no sources suggesting that he isn't the elected representative, and that should be that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an elected state or provincial legislature politician, he meets WP:NPOL. Anything else is subsidiary. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note. I have reverted my "Keep" close, as it was based on a misreading of a source. I won't close as "Delete", either; I feel the discussion needs to continue. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC).
 * Comment In continuation to my Delete vote above, I feel I must clarify this subjects position more clearly. (TLDR; this person never won any election, hence non notable)
 * This subject has never won any election before and only has passing mentions in 2018 election related news sites.
 * Election commision of Pakistan decides and declares a winner of election and not Pakistani news and online sites who are tracking the votes.
 * wrote in the nomination: by 30 August, the Election Commission hasn't notified him as the winner.
 * Chronologically On 7th August The victory notification of this candidate was cancelled by Election commision.
 * the previous election has been invalidated. and on on 11 Sept, Repolling has been ordered by EC so a new winner will be announced later . The Winner will be decided on the basis of this repoll. This person is not winner, and hence the Keep argument is void.
 * As of now Even the dates of re-election have not been declared. It will take months for the process of re-election to be completed and new winner to be declared.
 * It is not correct to wait for months because there is no guarantee that this same candidate will win again. perWP:FUTURE
 * In this situation, we can't go by what the old news reports said. They don't decide whether he has been elected or not. Only the EC can. And the EC has clearly said "not winner".
 * there is absolutely zero coverage of this person in media hence WP:GNG is failed by miles.
 * Some of the contributors have erroneously voted KEEP saying that he is Notable because he has won the election, well the fact is he didn't. Other contributors including me in the AFD have clearly pointed that this person cannot be claimed as a winner of election since the deciding authority, The Election Commision has already trashed its previous notification and called for fresh re-election which can have a new winner. So basically the sole ground for keep vote that "he is elected hence notable" is already void. D Big X ray ᗙ  08:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think in this rather outlying case, there was rather a view that getting the most votes is a fairly notable thing, as he was struck down on nationality basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nosebagbear, At AfD we have to follow policy [Edit: and Guidelines], WP:NPOLITICIAN nowhere states that "getting most votes is notable", it talks about the winner. and the deciding authority in the case the EC has not declared him the winner, so there no reasonable argument for keep. The only fallback option for this subject for Notability was GNG, and there is absolutely zero coverage of this person in media hence WP:GNG is failed by miles.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well firstly, it isn't a policy, it's a guideline, which specifically notes edge cases. I'll cover the point properly, but it will probably have to be tomorrow. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I stand corrected, but that is what we have and should follow rather than personal preferences. BLPs have strict criteria for a reason. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I realise my comment above was somewhat curter than it should be, apologies. BLPs have strong rules in terms of supporting controversial facts etc, but their rules on entrance criteria vary massively - NSPORTS (esp NFOOTY) for example is very easy to satisfy. Hence the dispute currently going on in this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Nosebagbear. Just a tangential comment: IMVHO, there's not a lot of difference between policies and guidelines. Per WP:GUIDES, policies describe standards that all users should normally follow while guidelines are best practices that are editors should attempt to follow, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Not much of a wide margin between "should normally follow" and "should attempt to follow," in my view. All this is in keeping with the free spirit of  Wikipedia, of course,  but I find that the community following policies and guidelines (which, importantly,  the community itself has established!) is not just damn good politics but quite practical too. But, as you said, an AfD may not be the best place to discuss this at length. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per nom and DBigXray. The election has been invalidated (due to irregularities) and the subject doesn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft until the election is finally decided. Contrary to what has been said above with respect to WP:POLITICIAN, we have always kept all articles of people actually elected to provincial and national legislatures. The interpretation of a guideline is decided by the community, and consistent decisions establish a interpretation. Its true we often have relatively little informatio nabout provincial legislatures in some countries--this sshould be seen as an example of culture bias,and what we ought to do, and what in practice we always actually do, is keep the articles in the anticipation of eventual expansion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.