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. Undisclosed paid editing NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Ghauri[edit]

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

Another creation by prolific sock Macrolancer (talk · contribs) / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal and likely paid editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure why you wish to delete this. Do we delete pages just because they are potentially (unproven) paid editing, or from a probable sockpuppet? What are your objections to this person being notable - even with the concerns raised above, we should re-write or improve rather than delete if he is notable, unless there is a policy I haven't read before on this. MartinJones (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DENY and BURDEN are a big part of these AfDs (and this is from an editor advertising themselves on Facebook, after all, with a prolific list of already-blocked socks).

But this person is supposedly notable as CEO of Netsol - we don't have an article on Netsol, and when we had a mere redirect on it, even that got deleted. This biog article is now half the size it was, after some well-overblown claims were removed (Netsol might meet CMMI 5, but they aren't the only people to do so - nor is it even clear why CMMI, a decades old standard, even conveys that much notability for a company these days. It's like describing a new startup as the finest of today's buggy whip makers) So they still have to make the case that this meets BLPN, and under this pile of promotion, I'm not seeing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding on your reasons, Andy. I've looked extensively for sources, and although I may be missing some which are not in English, I cannot find evidence that this man crosses the threshold of notability. Delete. MartinJones (talk) 13:23, 10 April 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.