Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. On the other hand, this BLP discusses the relatives of the subject, not the subject himself. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person therefore fails to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is incredibly poorly written, and doesn't really make any claim of notability for the subject under WP:NPOL at all — it just states that he exists as a politician and lawyer, and then proceeds to say more about the political careers of his father, grandfather and uncle than it does about his own. And of the two external links, one is a profile of somebody else entirely and the other just leads to a directory of news articles that aren't about Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri at all, so neither of them are notability-assisting references. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Yet this is with us since 2011. --Saqib (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2018 (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.