Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iftikhar A. Ayaz

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz

[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)

Fails

WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly meets
WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting
WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of
Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times, "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific", plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online. This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- specifically per Cielquiparle's analysis of criterion #1 of ANYBIO. Central and Adams (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that ANYBIO #1 does not establish notability.
WP:ANYBIO states clearly that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." We still need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now adequately sourced for both GNG and ANYBIO1. Ingratis (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, holding a KBE is clearly sufficient under
WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. KBE is not clearly sufficient for ANYBIO1, and regardless the subject should still have received multiple pieces of IRS SIGCOV per N. I'm not totally convinced that the brief announcement in Rabwah is sufficient to meet the "multiple" aspect here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it easily meets

WP:BASIC, ::If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per above discussion. KBE is an indication, but not per se evidence, of notability. In any case, this meets SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 20 May 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.