Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahabuddin Popalzai

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shahabuddin Popalzai

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Shahabuddin Popalzai (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)

Subject is only known for moon sighting controversies and lacks significant independent coverage or notable contributions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Behappyyar (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject doesn’t meet WP:BLP1E—being in the news briefly for a single event isn’t enough for a standalone article. The few news pieces available are surface-level mentions and don’t provide the kind of in-depth, independent coverage that WP:SIGCOV requires. Without stronger, lasting coverage in reliable sources, there’s no clear evidence of enduring notability under WP:GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2025 (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.