Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhtar Usman

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Usman

[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)

The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed per nom. Clearly fails GNG and NAUTHOR Wikibear47 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibear47, you need to see WP:ATA. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I couldn't find sources providing significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, I did come across some sources that support the subject's notability, though not conclusively. These include 1, 2, 3, 4, and ~~mentioned~~ featured in BCC Urdu's poetic collection here. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : Some links like Dawn and The News seems authentic.--Gul Butt (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gul Butt, What do you mean by "authentic" ? The News coverage is an opinion piece while Dawn coverage isn't considered a SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The Dawn source is fine, I imagine there would be more in the several native languages mentioned. I found this [1] and [2], which seem fine. I couldn't find any reviews in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oaktree b, Why are you citing an opinion piece to establish GNG? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  appears to be a critical review of his work Oaktree b (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oaktree b, Whether it's critical or not isn't the point. What matters is if the source being used to establish GNG is RS and in this case, it isn't. It's just a column written by an unknown freelancer, which might be suitable for the BLP itself but does not adequately support the case for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, it's published in a RS and helps support the other good sources given, I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. His book/work has been reviewed by Amjad Islam Amjad [3] and others [4], [5]. A few in-depth articles in Dawn are always helpful [6], [7]. Meets WP:NPOET. Gheus (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources like these DAWN, The News, DAWN, Dunya News, Express demonstrates notability. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2024 (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.