The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Lack of sources in reliable publications. There are a few mentions here or there, but that is to be expected from a journalist. But overall, he doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. NW ( Talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Seems very significant as a journalist wounded in action, so part of the story on his own, besides being a probably notable journalist on his own. "When Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated in northern Afghanistan two days before the September 11 Attacks, Dashty was working on a biography of the late commander, and was injured as well." I recall reading about this case. I think there is significant coverage. The AFD proposal, by the way, appears to be bad-faith in the sense that the proposer is going around on a random set of articles that a different editor blanked as part of a weird campaign, and which i unblanked. I don't expect the proposer knows anything much about this random topic area (nor do i). But, I am not making major edits like blanking or proposing AFD. And i am not disrupting wikipedia to make some point about there being imperfect articles out there. Bottom line about this one anyhow: seems significant; nominator mentions there are news mentions to be found. I oppose deletion. -- doncram ( talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Lack of sources in reliable publications. There are a few mentions here or there, but that is to be expected from a journalist. But overall, he doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. NW ( Talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Seems very significant as a journalist wounded in action, so part of the story on his own, besides being a probably notable journalist on his own. "When Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated in northern Afghanistan two days before the September 11 Attacks, Dashty was working on a biography of the late commander, and was injured as well." I recall reading about this case. I think there is significant coverage. The AFD proposal, by the way, appears to be bad-faith in the sense that the proposer is going around on a random set of articles that a different editor blanked as part of a weird campaign, and which i unblanked. I don't expect the proposer knows anything much about this random topic area (nor do i). But, I am not making major edits like blanking or proposing AFD. And i am not disrupting wikipedia to make some point about there being imperfect articles out there. Bottom line about this one anyhow: seems significant; nominator mentions there are news mentions to be found. I oppose deletion. -- doncram ( talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply