The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
No proper references —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Note, WP:POLITICIAN says they have to “have held a national office”. It says nothing about those individuals having been elected. In the first N decades of the United States the 2 delegates for each state to the United States Senate were not elected. They were appointed. To this day when a Senator dies in office, or is otherwise unable to complete their term, their replacement is appointed. Until very recently all the legislators in the UK House of Lords held that office through inheritance or appointment. Similarly, all the members of the Canadian Senate still are appointed, not elected. Members of Afghanistan's Meshrano Jirga are appointed, not elected. Even in democratic countries, not every member of a national legislature is elected, but they would all still qualify for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN.
Note, WP:POLITICIAN does NOT say they have to serve in "an ongoing legislative body". None of the members of the United States cabinet, except for the VPOTUS, serve in a legislature, but they would all qualify for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN, because they are all politicians who hold a national office. The Appointees who hold a national office qualify for WP:POLITICIAN, without regard to whether they were elected. Thomas Kean, the politician appointed to chair the 911 Commission would merit coverage in a separate article under WP:POLITICIAN, if he hadn`t already merited an article for being a former Governor, because his chairmanship was to a national office. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
So, sitting on the 911 commission is not an office? Interesting. Maybe you correct. Care to explain why?
I cited the US cabinet secretaries as important instances of WP:Politician who were all appointees. It is a point you chose not to address. Surely the least of them is more important than an ordinary Congressman? Surely the most important cabinet secretaries are more important than even the most important Congressional committee chairs? I repeat, they are all appointees.
Here in Canada Parliament appoints officers who hold great influence. The Auditor General is a very important position. Our most recent auditor general was very highly respected, and, at least as important as committee chairs and the less important cabinet ministers. Your assertion that elected offices are generally more notable than appointed offices is, no offense, a reflection of cultural blinkers.
There have been many times and places where appointed offices were, or are, much more important than elected offices.
The British Parliament gradually become more important. In Tudor times appointed and inherited offices were much more important than Parliament.
In pre-revolutionary France the King was under no obligation to convene the Estates General, the French equivalent to Parliament, on an annual basis. One of the triggers to the Revolution was that he had to convene the Estates General for the first time in decades, because his profligate spending was out of control, and raising new taxes required the participation of the people's representatives at the Estates General.
There are countries recently, in the 20th Century, now, in the 21st Century, where elected offices are not that significant. Saudi Arabia, for instance. The old Soviet Union had a national assembly, but it was a rubber stamp.
The meaning of your comment about borderline situations is unclear to me. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
You are not a newbie, surely you realize how unusual your decision to both voice your delete opinion in the {{ afd}}, and to make substantive edits to the article, is? If not, I am sorry to inform you that most of the other contributors I encountered who made this unusual choice turned out to be pushing some kind of POV.
I strongly urge you to decide, either, that the article absolutely cannot be made worthy of retention, and confine your efforts to the afd discussion, or accept that the only way you can make edits to the article and maintain the appearance of good faith is to return to the afd and withdraw your delete opinion. I strongly urge you to generally refrain from editing any articles, once you voice a delete opinion, at least unless the afd closes as keep or no consensus.
You call Faqiri a "functionary" of one of Afghanistan's many political party. Surely you are not continuing to refuse to acknowledge that he was the Party's Secretary General, not a mere functionary? As to whether the Jamiat-e-Islami was merely one of Afghanistan's political parties, from my reading it is one of the oldest and most important parties -- one of the few lead by a former President.
You write that Faqiri has never held a government appointment of any prominence. Surely you are not continuing to maintain that serving as a representative to the Loya Jirga is not a prominent government appointment? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
As to whether your edits were triggered by edits I made -- sorry, the contribution history does not support your assertion that your tags were "legitimate tags". Again I am going to extend to you the assumption of good faith and assume you don't understand the purpose of editorial tags.
Let me explain to you the purpose of editorial tags. The good faith, authorized use of editorial tags is for contributors who think an article can be improved to signal their concerns and suggestions to other good faith contributors who think an article can be improved. There are contributors who misuse editorial tags for editorializing. They add them to express their feelings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They have no desire to see the article improved.
I am willing to assume that the use of editorial tags to express feeling of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is so common you think it is a legitimate use of those tags. But I suggest it is not a legitimate use of editorial tags. I do not believe your placement of these tags on an article you have worked hard to delete is "legitimate", although I am happy to assume that you mistakenly thought it was a legitimate use of the tags.
Instead I think you should have either confined your comments to the afd -- or returned to the afd, and said you changed your mind, and that you now think the article can be improved to the point where it deserves to remain on the wikipedia.
WRT Faqiri being mentioned in the article about Jamiat-e Islami. First, I am going to take your mention of the party as a tacit acknowledgment that you recognize it is not just another party, but is one of the most important parties in Afghanistan. Second, the article needs a lot of work. I added an image that shows Mohammad Nasim Faqiri announcing Burhanuddin Rabbani's resignation on 2011-01-20. So this concern of yours is no longer valid.
WRT the prominence of the Faqiri's appointment to Peace Jirga -- first, note that he was one of the limited number of appointees who was quoted by the media. Second, once again, you are using your own personal re-writing of WP:Politician, when you suggest this was not "a 'major' political office". What is a "major" political office? Which wikidocument usese this phrase? None of them do. WP:Politician requires the individual to have held a national office. The US Congress appoints a Poet Laureate. If an appointee to the Poet Laureate office was a politician as well as a poet, even if they had only been a school trustee, then holding the national office of Poet Laureate would qualify them for the special provisions of WP:Politician. You may not think this proper. And if you think that you are free to use the wikipedia's channels to get WP:Politician rewritten. Meanwhile, let's stick with its actual wording, not what you would like it to say -- OK? Geo Swan ( talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
As to whether he was appointed the Party's Secretary General in 2008, I didn't come across any references that supported this assertion. But I didn't remove the assertion, when I spent a couple of hours trying to rescue the article, because I suspected the article's original author, whose name indicates he is from the region, had access to local media that would support that assertion. The original author was the victim of serious lapses from WP:BITE. I hope they return so they can help complete the article on this notable individual. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The party, which has been led by former president Burhanuddin Rabbani since 1968, would hold a general assembly in which all members would elect a new leader and other officials, Mohammad Naseem Faqiri, the general secretary of the party, said.