Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ziauddin

: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. Merge discussions should continue on the article's talk page Courcelles 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

=[[Ahmed Ziauddin]]=

:{{la|Ahmed Ziauddin}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Ziauddin Stats])

:({{Find sources|Ahmed Ziauddin}})

Not notable at all as notability is not inherited. This guy only gets mentioned due to The Economist hacking his skype account. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge to Mohammed Nizamul Huq. This article is just an extension of the story surrounding Huq (an appellate judge in Bangladesh). There's already a bunch of overlap between the content in both these articles, so a merge seems to be the best option. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While he does not seem to passes WP:PROF, there are arguably [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%22Ahmed+Ziauddin%22 enough media citations] to justify keeping. The subject seems to play an advocacy role of some international notability, and has been doing that for a while.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge per Lord Roem comments. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep Has good WP:SOURCES to pass WP:V [http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21568349-week-chairman-bangladeshs-international-crimes-tribunal-resigned-we-explain here], [http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=260294 here], [http://www.banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=ea87c6c5a3165cf39e1475fd265691fe&nttl=2013010361275 here], [http://ijcentral.org/news/bangladesh_war-crime_tribunal_bogs_down/ here], [http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/index.php?ref=MjBfMTJfMDdfMTJfMV8zXzE1MjM3Nw== here], and herehttp://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/12/bangladesh. Seems he is the subject of an ongoing event. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the sources provided by PDX97217 go a long way towards establishing notability; whether this information can be merged into a piece about the Economist case is debatable. I don't think deletion is appropriate, neither am I sold that a full Keep is met here. I suggest that a No Consensus close is appropriate in this instance and that matters can be revisited latter if deemed appropriate. This has been held over three times, so it's time to make a call... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

: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.