Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qasim Ali Shah (3rd nomination)

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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Shah

Qasim Ali Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This self-proclaimed 'motivational' speaker doesn't seems to meet WP:GNG. This same story also states he has "no credentials or experience." Most of the media coverage he's received stem from his controversial appointment as chairman of the Lahore Arts Council, which itself isn't a notable position or office. Additionally, while there is some press coverage on "Qasim Ali Shah" it's difficult to say if it all pertains to this same individual, given the commonality of the name in Pakistan. Moreover, considering his self-proclaimed status, it's plausible that he may have paid for promotional interviews like this one. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  samee  converse  18:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find coverage of the the controversial statements made; the Dawn source used seems RS but it's still a small article. I don't think he's notable just for being shot down on Twitter over things said. I can't find sourcing about his other activities, so doesn't seem to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and especially WP:SIGCOV. Corporate trainers are too common to have an article on every one of them. We have been very hesitant to keep article that are only sourced to "controversial statements" of BLPs. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (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.