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. While by strict count of the participants this is a keep, the arguments advanced by those !voters are largely not based in policy or guidelines. However, there is not enough participation here for there to be a delete consensus either. That is how we end up with no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Ahmad (forester) (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)

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Delete an overly promotional article. Considering how much the Library of COngress holds, you know that when an article mentions the subject has a work they wrote there it is a red flag for promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep how is this promotional, as the person is dead. I am not sure what library of congress has to do with the discussion. I would like to know what you mean by promotional. If you are referring the to material that is written than you should argue to delete that rather than the whole article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.60.246 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the above person's argument for 'Keep' of the article. If a dead Pakistani person's work at the Library of Congress is promotional, I am sure he did not get up from his grave to go and overpower and force the Library of Congress staff to keep carrying his book and written material in their library. I am convinced whoever the persons are that have been editing this above subject article, could not have forced the Library of Congress. Don't I have the same right to be highly cynical and have a 'Deletionist Frame of Mind' as anyone else on Wikipedia? Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article

• KeepI agree with the above person's argument for 'Keep' of the article. If a dead Pakistani person's work at the Library of Congress is promotional, I am sure he did not get up from his grave to go and overpower and force the Library of Congress staff to keep carrying his book and written material in their library. I am convinced whoever the persons are that have been editing this above subject article, could not have forced the Library of Congress. Don't I have the same right to be highly cynical and have a 'Deletionist Frame of Mind' as anyone else on Wikipedia?Tailoredink (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC) — Tailoredink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment, a book being held by the LoC conveys absolutely nothing to the author/subject of the book in terms of wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That's just fine. I am not saying that he should be notable due to that book Coolabahapple. Absolutely not! I will try in the morning to see if I can find some more reliable sources to improve the article. Unfortunately some of the prevailing cynicism on this discussion forum gets the best of me - only sometimes, otherwise I try my best to keep a somewhat positive attitude making my comments here. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and looked for reliable sources in the morning but none showed up for me. Maybe someone else would have better luck, if they want to try? Urdu book references, since this was an older person? I am moving on to the next thing. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe it is in the interest to keep this article. Rather than to delete the article we should endeavor to make it better. I agree with the above analysis on the arguments to keep. I will try to locate writings from Kashmir and Pakistan. I have the same rights as anyone else to vote to keep. I agree with Nregrewall and his analysis. I have reviewed a few articles and a agree with most of the research and as such we should always try to be better. This is my two bits Moditwenty (talk)
• Keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditwenty (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article and its style of writing is promotional. Listing a holding of a work in a huge and comprehensive database in now way shows the creator of that work is notable. What is needed is reviews not holdings listings. The promotion in an article does not have to be the work of the subject of the article for it to be overly much so, that is why we have the not memorial rule among others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP The article is poorly written and the layout is incorrect. But the subject is notable Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have a hard time finding RS references of coverage to support WP:N from languages (EN, ZH) that I speak. If anyone could provide RS evidence I could be convinced. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I see several Keep !votes from possible SPAs however the subject seems notable to me. RS coverage may exist in Urdu language sources. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• can someone explain why a dead person would need a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditwenty (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• for a start, see WP:MEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Making it better for starters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11D:DB9E:DD:3089:1441:AB70 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 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.