Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Dawood 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. Those in favor of "keep" have made no policy-based arguments showing that the subject meets notability guidelines. Jujutacular (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M. Dawood Khan

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No indication of notability. The sources mention Khan only in passing, or not at all. The tone is promotional, the content not based on what the sources report about Khan. Huon (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual is notable personality in Pakistan and UAE..I suugest to keep it GreenCricket (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete - non-notable self promotion article. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see why he is not a notable personality as you say he isn’t. He has been mention in BBC, Financial Times, Times of London & Hindustan Times to name a few international sources, not to mention almost all of Pakistan’s local News Papers and TV Channels have written about him / his company Prime Transport Limited which he owns 100%.

I am not promoting him but stating the facts, three consecutive Prime Ministers of Pakistan have either favored or opposed him.

There have been debates on his project and him in National Assembly (Lower House of Representatives) and Senate (Upper Hose), what else will make a man notable then his own countries Parliamentarians discussing about him.

I have stated just a brief of a long list of articles and discussions that have gone on and on about him and his project. Which I intend to add on in coming days, I say it should stay on and not be deleted as I have much more articles backup to prove my stance. Naeem.ptl (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual is notable personality in Pakistan and UAE..I suugest to keep it. SDK (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the article could be improved, the person is clearly notable, as he has been criticized by the opposition party in the National assembly, so Keep. Martinogk (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the page should be deleted ??? Other lesser notable personality have articles on Wikipedia and Khan has been discussed numerous times in National Assembly & Senate which is backed by number of News Articles.Naeem.ptl (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are either forum boards or "Khan said..." name drops/mentions. Additionally, these sources are stacked, forming a bit of CITEKILL in places, and leaving much of the page unsourced. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because wp:BIO1E - Basically, the entire article hinges on reports that his company got the contract to build London-type cabs. That's not enough to hang an article on. Also, much of the article is unsourced and some of the language is promotional. LaMona (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ All articles in the reference are from independent sources on which Khan has no control, all are sourced but one "International News Network” of which I am trying to find the proper link and should have it linked soon, for rest all 14 references are fully back by independent source. Additionally its not a contract given to his company, it’s a system of transport that is initiated by Khan in whole of the country. Naeem.ptl (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem.ptl, I have struck your second !vote. You are welcome to comment further on this discussion, but continued "keeps" will do nothing. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based solely on guidelines, searches turn up nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 7 November 2015 (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.