Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumtaz Kahloon

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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Kahloon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional, fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Chairman of the National Vocational & Technical Education Commission of Pakistan (NAVTEC) which is a major public post I believe the subject passes the criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges --Cedix (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL can't be passed like that. They must be a member of the legislature. Störm (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that this is a national level commission in Pakistan. So being its chief, I believe he qualifies. Cedix (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The role is significant enough that he could keep a well-referenced article that properly established that he passes WP:GNG, but it is not an "inherently" notable role that automatically guarantees him an article just because he exists. NPOL serves to clarify what's accepted as a notability claim for a politician, but politicians do still have to have reliable source coverage about them before they actually get in the door — which legislators always do, even if our articles aren't always very good at actually using all of their coverage, but appointed officials may or may not. But four of the references here are just glancing namechecks of his existence in articles where he is not the subject, and one is a piece of his own bylined writing on the self-published website of his own company — which means five of the six footnotes are doing absolutely nothing at all in terms of establishing his notability. And the only reference that is actually about him is a 53-word blurb, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the best source he can show. So yes, this would probably be keepable if it were referenced better than this — but the role doesn't automatically exempt him from having to be referenced better than this, because no political role ever actually exempts a person from having to be well-referenced. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removed unsourced content, cleaned up the article. Fixed and updated all 7 references including 4 references from major newspapers of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present in the article now aren't changing the case. Five of the seven are still the same ones I already addressed above, and the two new ones you've added are still just brief glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. We're not looking for sources that mention him: we're looking for sources that are about him, meaning that he is their primary subject. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 14:59, 21 April 2020 (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.