Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiz Khan

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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article contains no prose content. Infobox provides no obvious claim to encyclopedic notability. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was hard to find because of the common name, but I did end up finding significant coverage in several Indian newspapers. I have added those sources to the article and created a lead. I don't know where the information in the infobox came from, however; maybe that should be deleted if it cannot be sourced. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added some more information to the page to indicate why the subject is notable, with sources. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ HAL333 19:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the stated reason for nomination no longer applies! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe:, This is one of the reasons why "x per nom" !votes are useless. This isn't a voting process (which the WP:NOTVOTE page explains well); it's supposed to be a discussion that tries to come to a consensus. Saying "delete per nom" is just confusing when (1) the article now contains prose content and (2) no longer has an infobox (when the complaints in the nomination were that (1) there was no prose and (2) a dubious infobox). I guess that raises the question: since none of the reasons in the nomination apply anymore, should this be a speedy keep under WP:CSK reason 1? Ikjbagl (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The coverage provided constitutes about one SIGCOV, two short of the minimum. The BBC source seems to be about a different muslim cow-protection adovocate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' not an encyclopaedia articleEasytostable (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as an on-the-ropes WP:GNG pass, but the article still needs a lot of improvement. (Also, don't you just love the "DuttEmailEmailBioBioFollowFollow" error made from the 6th citation) dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dibbydib, could you list which of the sources you are counting toward notability? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The Washington Post and BBC sources don't have so much to do with the subject. The Hindustan Times and Times of India sources are some significant coverage, but given that the dates are almost identical, this looks like common coverage of a single event. India Today's coverage is a little glancing, but ok. The Mangaluru source is a bit strange, and I have doubts about its reliability. I'm not seeing this as adding up to WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, I see little hope for the article to be anything besides a permanent stub. The difficulty in distinguishing between this Faiz Khan and others of the same name doesn't help. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With the exception of the Hindustan Times and Times of India, there isn't really any reliable coverage other than passing mentions and as Russ Woodroofe points out those are both of a single event. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 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.