Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazi Shahzad
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ghazi Shahzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [1] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [2], [3], [4], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)