Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obaidullah Baheer

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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obaidullah Baheer

[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)

Appears PROMO. No coverage in RS, does not meet any of the academic or author notability criteria. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF, but he seems to have a high profile as a journalist, and it's easy to find stuff he wrote in major media. It's harder to find publications by other people with in-depth coverage about him, but I think the Economic Times piece [1] (also available on multiple other sources) counts as that. The NPR interview [2] is an interview, and more on other topics than him, but does have some coverage of him as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This source [3] passes IS RS, but other sources are focused on their family, not SIGCOV addressing them directly and indepth. Notability is not inherited and a single source does not show notability. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft After some research I do think this article passes on Notability. However, in its current state the article is not up to Wiki standards and should be drafted until a better article can be produced. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he passing NPROF, and there isn't enough to pass GNG. Wouldn't be opposed to drafting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:57, 5 May 2023 (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.