Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Huda

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Huda (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)

Non-notable politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article subject has not accrued the significant local coverage needed to be considered notable, as the only claim of signifigance the subject has is that he was elected alongside the first Australian Hijabi Councillor. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak DeleteKeep. Meets WP:GNG, failing WP:POLITICIAN is not a reason for deletion when the subject meets GNG. only just meets GNG, not to sure about this Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the status of Canterbury-Bankstown Council, I see no reason to have a separate page on him. I removed a reference about Nadia Saleh^[1], Power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local politician with a couple trivial mentions in The Daily Telegraph, a passing mention in MySalaam, and a short piece on a dodgy-looking WordPress-powered website. Searches of the usual "find sources" types found nothing more significant. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the GNG. The sources used are either unreliable, or not independent (the Daily Tele article merely republishes the candidates' own responses to a questionnaire). Kb.au (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A politician holding office. Article is a stub but should be kept and possible expanded.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment INDIAN REVERTER is a new account whose posting history is almost entirely "Keep" submissions to AfDs. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:24, 20 September 2017 (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.