Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:30, 27 October 2024

Umar Farooq Zahoor

• Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor
• Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor (2nd nomination)

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!

Umar Farooq Zahoor (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)

At first look, the BLP appears notable. However, by evaluating the coverage, I'm unable to locate any reference that meets GNG. The sources largely rely on tabloid journalism Norwegian publications such as Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet where sources #1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are written by the same reporter (Rolf J. Widerøe). The rest of the sources include unreliable Pakistani publications, and spam sources such as source #17 per this which was added as an archived source. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Norway. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Crime. Spiderone 21:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: This BLP meets the GNG due to the SIGCOV the subject has received. Dismissing all of this coverage as spam doesn't make sense by this newbie account and this appears to be an attempt to whitewash a BLP simply because the subject did not approve of it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Saqib I think it fails GNG, apart from the tabloid journalism which is not suitable for BLP that you've largely relied on while creating the article, all of the sources are trivial, non-independent and unreliable and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2019. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those?

  Could you clarify as well what do you mean by simply because the subject did not approve of it.? Which subject and how do you know that the subject did not approve of it? Bosecovey (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep enough media coverage in Norewegian media and books to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Also, he is the recipient of Hilal-e-Imtiaz which is enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. Gheus (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can't find online sources that mentioned that the subject of the article received Hilal-e-Imtiaz. He shouldn't pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC since the Norewegian media are tabloids. Bosecovey (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Gheus Regarding the HI award, I think WP:TOOSOON applies here, as the source indicates he is scheduled to receive it on 23 March 2025. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable on so many levels. Hilal-e-Imtiaz alone is enough to pass GNG not to mention all the fraud cases. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Wikibear47 Could you clarify the levels you're speaking about?

  I can't find any reliable source online confirming that the subject of the article has received Hilal-e-Imtiaz, even though there is no limit to the number awarded and Hilal-e-Imtiaz is not considered a significant honor at Misplaced Pages.

  I tend to consider the source that mentioned Hilal-e-Imtiaz (The Express Tribune) a non-independent source and seems like routine covering however it didn't say that he has received the award. Bosecovey (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Wikibear47 Regarding the HI award, I think WP:TOOSOON applies here, as the source indicates he is scheduled to receive it on 23 March 2025. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Some do not see any activity that is against Misplaced Pages's policy and should be kept WP:ANYBIO. Cassigad (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The use of a tabloid journalism source like Verdens Gang by an experienced editor raises a valid concern; however, the individual still meets the WP:GNG criteria.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, I’m not the only one using this source. If you consider it unreliable, please take it to WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown According to Misplaced Pages:RSP#Tabloids They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, and lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and still fail GNG.

It seems that the reporter writing for Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet, who has covered this topic extensively, has a clear conflict of interest. This shouldn't raise any valid concerns I guess. Bosecovey (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates