Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Ashfaq Hussain

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. No consensus for a specific outcome has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Ashfaq Hussain

[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)

Authors 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:AUTHOR. Subject has written some non-notable (at least by WP standards) books and Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources, thus fails both WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He received coverage for his writings but it is not a significant one. Rzvas (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the OP is correct in saying the author isn't notable in this case, but there is substantial coverage of the book, which seems to be about the mismanagement of Pakistani policy during the Kargil war: [1], [2], [3], [4]. We could consider renaming and reworking this into an article about the book. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow discussion re: Vanamonde's proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR due to significant critical attention. This Colonel is notable for his book Witness to Blunder: Kargil Story Unfolds Colonel has got significant coverage in Pakistani and Indian mainstream media both print and television. NDTV,[5] ABP News, Geo TV (talk shows and news channels), Newspaper Dawn[6], India today[7], Rediff news,[8] Tribune India,[9] Tribune Pakistan[10] to pass GNG. There are only a few books written on Kargil wars by "Pakistani military officers". This author being one of them. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. If anyone wants to create an article about his book then start a new article. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil your !vote only quoted a policy and did not explain why it fails. without a valid rational, such "votes" are disregarded by the closing admin. I have clearly explained that Section 4C of the WP:NAUTHOR has been satisfied along with GNG. moreover he is a senior Military officer. Kindly reconsider your vote.--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per DBigXray and per WP:AUTHOR point 4C as his works in particular his book "Witness to Blunder: Kargil Story Unfolds" has won significant critical attention. Has a weak claim to pass WP:SOLDIER point 8 he was a senior officer in the Pakistan Army's media arm Inter-Services Public Relations and part of its ISI's analysis wing during the Kargil Conflict.BBC does quote him during the Kargil Conflict BBC World: South Asia Indian army sweeps for mines and may in combination pass WP:GNG. As per this ,this ,this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 1 October 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.