- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Najeeb Haroon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He fails WP:NPOL and seems to fail harder WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Saqib ( talk) 06:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Being a senior member of a political party's internal organizational structure is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. It could still get him an article if it were sourced to enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to clear WP:GNG, but there's nowhere near enough coverage being shown here. Bearcat ( talk) 22:47, 8 August 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.