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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TJRC (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Azeem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not a professional cricketer, has played some university cricket but by profession he is a barrister. Nothing notable exists about him as a cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an article I created that seems to have dropped off my radar and I've never completed it! His cricket is a very small part of what makes him notable. He is one of the leading legal figures in Pakistan. He is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a professor at Harvard University. In his capacity as a legal academic he has contributed to journals on Pakistani politics. Since 1978, he has been president of the Pakistan Human Rights Society, and a dean at the Pakistan Academy of Strategic and Policy Studies since 1988. He is also a legal journalist. Clearly passes GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AssociateAffiliate. If you can provide some sources regarding what you mentioned then I will withdraw this nom. Störm (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record on the website that he has been president of Human Rights Society. Störm (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm just off out for the evenong, so haven't much time to collate sources at the moment, but although self-published, his legal bio here has some pointers where to look. I can pick this up again tomorrow. StickyWicket (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This further mentions him "as an advisor to four Prime Ministers and governments in Pakistan. Mr. Hassan has also represented Pakistan many times at the United Nations in New York and before the Human Rights Commission in Geneva." Really most shoot!!! StickyWicket (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to be clearly notable as a lawyer/professor with enough significant coverage to pass GNG. The article needs rewriting/refocusing with that in mind. Also needs moving, as he appears to be commonly known as Farooq Hassan (or Syed Farooq Hassan). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather Any source which confirms the lawyer/professor was also a cricketer? Störm (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, cricket is secondary here. However, this confirms the date of birth, and he appears on scorecards as "FA Hassan" for Oxford; clearly the same person. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His 11 FC games are over the recently discussed 10 game limit discussed on WP:Cricket and as AA and Wjemather both point out, he passes GNG for his non-cricketing career. Farooq Azeem seems to be the name used in cricket archives so may need to be changed if his GNG coverage is more under a differing name. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NCRIC, having played in 11 FC matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if he weren't notable in other fields, he is a clear pass in cricket with 11 first-class appearances. This again shows the lack of adequate checking of sources by a handful of users before creating an AfD nomination. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - I agree that sources might exist, please anyone uninvolved here may close this. Störm (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2021 (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.