Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayaz Nizami

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 no consensus. Despite relists there is no consensus whether the cited sources confer notability, slightly favoring such notability. Merging or redirecting can be discussed at the talk page if needed. So Why 07:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Nizami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

some sources are not notable enough. fails WP:GNG. received some press coverage but they doesn't makes the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. Saqib (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Ayaz Nizami is the Raif Badawi of Pakistan. After Nizami was arrested news of the situation went viral; at one point #hangayaznizami was the #1 trending twitter topic in Pakistan, displaying the level of religious fundamentalism to the world. After the hashtag trended twitter was cricised for allowing a directly violent hashtag to trend. Not just in "focused" news sources, but large newspapers with readers around the world like the Daily Mail.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4345364/Pakistani-police-prevent-clerics-rally-against-blasphemy.html)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is no more a credible source. Merely getting press coverage for single event doesn't makes a person notable. --Saqib (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He satisfies the definition of "prisoner of conscience." Most Prisoner of conscience have articles. Not just his arrest got press coverage, but the following incidents related got press coverage too (Rally by clerics, hashtag, etc) Multiple incidents of press coverage. Not only press coverage news of him had large social media presence. There were protests after his arrest (for and against), from Pakistan to Norway. Other notable sources from major newspapers;

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-03-24/pakistan-more-bloggers-charged-clerics-rally-blocked http://92newshd.tv/two-arrested-disseminating-blasphemous-content-objectionable-literature-seized/ http://www.atimes.com/article/hangayaznizami-comes-caving-clerical-rule/ http://video.genfb.com/1374723449253219 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-christians-islam-lynching-trial-muslims-convert-youhanabad-lahore-church-bombings-a7659721.html http://nation.com.pk/national/24-Mar-2017/blasphemy-crackdown-fia-arrests-2-suspects-from-karachi --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't feel the subject quite breaches the WP:GNG currently. What we're looking at are a number of inadmissible sources (Daily Mail, Ummat.net, a self-published blog, and the subject's own website) mixed in with reliable sources which only mention the subject in passing. There isn't sustained coverage actually exploring the subject of the article in-depth. The fact that his name might appear in articles about broader topics in the Independent, the Nation, et al. doesn't qualify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Hindustan times? Whole article. [1] chicago tribune [2] and iheu [3] Given the rather large online presence and prominence as one of the few open athiests living in Pakistan, as well as the international reaction, isn't that notable? He used many aliases, if you can't find much notable under one name, search under another and more comes up. (Ex, allama ayaz nizami...)PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect he's not notable on his own; the only references in credible sources are of the "3 charged with blasphemy" type. If there's a suitable redirect page, I support keeping a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no suitable redirect page: I created this article because the name "Ayaz Nizami" was in red links on several different articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan#Selected_cases is minimally acceptable, but not a great option. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I cannot see Ayaz Nizami links to several different articles as you claim. As of now the page links to only 3 articles. --Saqib (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were red links on Blasphemy law in Pakistan, List of former Muslims, Irreligion in Pakistan.PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Search yielded lots of hits from reliable secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.