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 to delete. W.marsh 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pav Akhtar[edit]

This article was tagged in May as lacking a credible claim of notability - I think that is accurate, and it still lacks any such claim. This person was a student political activist, and is now a borough councillor, but that is the limit of it. These are not achievements that will garner significant independent coverage - there is unlikely to be an independent biography on the basis of such activities, and a local councillor will not normally qualify for an obituary in the broadsheets should they happen to die. Although we have articles on borough councillors it's almost always because they went on to become members of parliament, or did something else worthy of note. I suspect that this article exists to prove a point about gay Muslims, but perhaps that is just a coincidence. The article was started (and is the sole contribution of) an acknowledged student activist, who believes in 100% income tax for people earning over £50,000 (which does not indicate much of a grounding in realpolitik or indeed reality) Cruftbane 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely autobiography by single-purpose account. Does not demonstrate biographical notability. First Muslim to win an office would be arguably notable, but first to run is not, by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local councillor does not meet WP:NOTE. He has quite bit of press in the Guardian as a student activist but nothing of significance or importance that would guarantee long-term historical notability in my view, so I lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Status as a local councillor might be insufficient for notability but the well-documented activity and controversy in student government qualifies. 76.212.213.198 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (Neglected to signin when leaving the preceding - Orphic 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep - Please assume good faith; whether this article fails or passes WP:N, it does so very close to the borderline, and as such there are plenty of people, first-time contributors or not, who find Akhtar notable enough for an article, without him having to write his own autobiography. Regarding notability, he has held a notable and conspicuous public office (President of Cambridge University Students Union), and been a councillor. While these are not alone enough to pass WP:N, the secondary coverage and furore created by the Black Students' affair, and Akhtar's activities and such since, mean that he is a well-known figure covered in several independent sources. That said, if there is consensus to delete, I'm in favour of that too (as I said, its a borderline case). Jdcooper 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable politician and activist. Members of state/provincial legislatures (e.g., London City Council) are per se notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If only he rose to such heights - he is a councillor for some subdivision of a subdivision of London. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate Keep- those are fairly notable councils, and the involvement, if AGF applies, seems sufficient to get over the line. Clean up.JJJ999 05:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt provides useful information on this individual. Why delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.155.23 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an interesting character, but fails WP:N & WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - info is good enough to shove this over the borderline - David Gerard 11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician. fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Sc straker 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice Lambeth Councillor isn't enough to warrant coverage, and everything else is irrelevant. Without prejudice, as Lambeth councillors have been known to rise to more noteworthy positions. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 7 October 2007 (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.