- 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) J 947 03:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Haroon Khawaja ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the subject received some press mentions, but fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Saqib ( talk) 10:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be some doubt about last Afd, which removes my initial doubt. scope_creep ( talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is enough neutral stuff to consider this article. There may be some technical mistakes (as it is my first article) which I am ready to update. To validate Haroon Khawaja as a notable and politician i have found some more following links.
- http://pakobserver.net/expert-group-calls-for-revision-of-proposed-elections-bill/
- http://dailytimes.com.pk/islamabad/27-Jan-17/experts-not-happy--with--the-elections-bill-2017-
- http://lahoreworld.com/tag/haroon-khawaja/ (this has several links)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvIx4RIsxe8 (and part 2 of this)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxePKPl8Wk (and part 2 & 3)
- Mr. Saqib has edited the article and removed whole of its content doesn't seem fair to me while now we have enough references about Haroon Khawaja.
-
Gresys (
talk)
08:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- First two references (Daily Times and Pak Observer) are already cited in the article despite the fact they both doesn't contain much information about the subject. YouTube interviews are usually not cited unless the video is produced by a well reputed source. The TV channels (Such TV and Royal News) who did interview are not considered a RS so I won't cite the YouTube interviews. lahoreworld.com source is not a RS. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep per links added to the article by @ Toddy1: during the AfD which closed with consensus to keep one week ago (also pinging closing admin: @ Coffee:). Smmurphy( Talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Smmurphy:: out of five references added to the article by Toddy1, three are unreliable sources. --
Saqib (
talk)
08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain which sources you consider unreliable, and why.--
Toddy1
(talk)
09:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Lahore World and
Pakistan Telegraph are a user generated news website with no editorial board. Both news website have no credibility.
Pakistan Defence is a user generated forum and not a news website. --
Saqib (
talk)
09:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- How do you know that Lahore World and Pakistan Telegraph are user generated news websites?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Lahore World and
Pakistan Telegraph are a user generated news website with no editorial board. Both news website have no credibility.
Pakistan Defence is a user generated forum and not a news website. --
Saqib (
talk)
09:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain which sources you consider unreliable, and why.--
Toddy1
(talk)
09:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Smmurphy:: out of five references added to the article by Toddy1, three are unreliable sources. --
Saqib (
talk)
08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Pakistan Defence is a forum, mentioning it in the previous discussion was an error.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not mentioning The Nation (a Pakistan newspaper), was also an error. I saw that Haroon Khawaja had written a column for it on 26 December 2016, and had not realised that that was the only column he had written for it (rather in the same way that Western politicians sometimes write columns for newspapers). There are hundreds of other articles mentioning him in The Nation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Toddy1:: Both sources Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World) are clearly questionable sources with no editorial oversight so why not avoid them as they surely has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. I don't know how to prove that both are unreliable sources but being a local, I never heard about them nor they're being used on Wikipedia as references apart from a couple of bio pages. --
Saqib (
talk)
12:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Saqib: Thank you for explaining why you believe that Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World might be "questionable sources" - you are a local, and have never heard of them.
But you do accept that the following sources are reliable? - --
Toddy1
(talk)
14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I do, and I know the subject received several press mentions in The Nation but I wonder if merely getting press mentions makes one notable enough to warrant an entry on WP? majority of press mention in The Nation just quote his name and position and nothing else. I'm failed to find a single source which look like a bio or profile or even discuss about his education, career, family etc. Anyways, If you still disagree with me and think that getting press coverage makes one notable then lets close this nomination, keep the page and spend time on something else. Thank you. --
Saqib (
talk)
16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the press coverage in reliable sources makes him notable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I do, and I know the subject received several press mentions in The Nation but I wonder if merely getting press mentions makes one notable enough to warrant an entry on WP? majority of press mention in The Nation just quote his name and position and nothing else. I'm failed to find a single source which look like a bio or profile or even discuss about his education, career, family etc. Anyways, If you still disagree with me and think that getting press coverage makes one notable then lets close this nomination, keep the page and spend time on something else. Thank you. --
Saqib (
talk)
16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Saqib: Thank you for explaining why you believe that Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World might be "questionable sources" - you are a local, and have never heard of them.
- @
Toddy1:: Both sources Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World) are clearly questionable sources with no editorial oversight so why not avoid them as they surely has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. I don't know how to prove that both are unreliable sources but being a local, I never heard about them nor they're being used on Wikipedia as references apart from a couple of bio pages. --
Saqib (
talk)
12:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep As way too soon for another nomination per WP:DELAFD - "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favour of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it is particularly helpful to fall back on a point of procedure to try and hasten the close of the Afd. There is obviously serious doubt as regards the notability of the subject in the mind of Saqib. Being closer to a culture gives you a much better understanding of it. The references raised by User:Toddy1 are mostly not there, and the article is hanging on by it's proverbial fingernails. In the last Afd, the premise was it passed WP:BASIC by coverage, but Saqib show the coverage is not reliable, hence, it is not enough to satisfy the BLP process. scope_creep ( talk) 12:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Notability of a person is determined by physical ground facts and how citizens of Pakistan recognise the person. In this particular case building of Industrial estates, managing and hold different portfolio's have made HK a person who is respected and praised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelhashmi ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 February 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.