Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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 keep‎. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[1][2][3][4][5]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
- Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
- Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
- The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
- Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
- The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:COMMONSENSE as chief of police of a massive city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, Pardon my ignorance but I'd like to ask if being the "chief of police of a massive city" does automatically makes one inherently notable? And as far GNG is concerned, this BLP doesn't meet that threshold as I've done source assessment above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shall I cite WP:COMMONSENSE again... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necrothesp, OK, this might be my last reply, as I don't want to come across as bludgeon, but I find it intriguing that an editor voted to keep a BLP based on WP:COMMONSENSE. By this logic, every police chief of a massive city would easily gets a WP bio, based on some ROTM coverage. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I think that would be fair. After all, we wouldn't dream of not having a bio for the chiefs of police of London, New York, etc. And I'm not sure why you keep emphasising that this is a WP:BLP. So what? There's nothing unsourced here. BLP and notability are entirely different issues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Necrothesp and excessive use of WP:ROTM (an essay, never vetted by the community) as argument to dismiss valid reliable secondary references is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Saqib, either stop using this term or be ready for repercussions of wasting our time reading these poorly written cookie-cutter AfD rationales. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, And, why don't you just stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING and LOUTSOCKING! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ASPERSIONS. @Doczilla: has an advice for you above. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. There is enough coverage (with bylines) to meet WP:GNG:

"Lahore CCPO Dogar suspended by federal govt". DAWN.COM. November 6, 2022.

Bhatti, Haseeb (December 2, 2022). "SC reinstates Ghulam Mahmood Dogar as Lahore CCPO". DAWN.COM.

Malik, Mansoor (February 19, 2023). "Another leaked clip adds to Dogar controversy". DAWN.COM.

Bhatti, Haseeb (February 17, 2023). "SC suspends transfer of Lahore police chief Ghulam Mahmood Dogar". DAWN.COM.

2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 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.