Talk:Ahmad Nizam Abbas

Notability?
Is subject notable enough for a Wikipedia page? Also, some of the links to support the article are not in English making it difficult to understand whether it meets inclusion guidelines. Whycleef (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the subject can't be non-notable for a page. There are over 23 citations. With regard to the present article, citations 5, 10, and 15 are directly about him. There are also a number of research articles published by him in the relatively niche field of Singaporean Syariah law. Citations 22 and 23 are about his leading Syariah law work. I think those aspects should satisfy WP:Academic. The other citations cover him in other detail, establishing his notability in civil service and public cases. The Malay citations largely describe him as a leading lawyer; some Google translations are below:
 * Earlier this year, the firm attracted veteran lawyer, Mr. Ahmad Nizam Abbas who became a senior partner and head of the Family Law Practice at Emerald Law. (citation 9)
 * This is especially with Encik Ahmad Nizam's extensive experience and his access to materials that are difficult to find such as cases that are not reported in the Syariah court and the MUIS appeals board. (citation 23)
 * Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Whycleef. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is not about how many citations one can find. I have nothing else to add. Useful to just let the broader Wiki community decide after reading the wiki article, your comments above on why you think the subject is notable and my earlier comments and edits which you deleted. Neither of us have a stake in this after all. Whycleef (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

One last suggestion to assist those in charge of verification of notability on wiki as you alluded to number of citations as an indicator of notability. Half of your citations are dated articles unavailable online or from publications no longer in circulation some apparently written by the subject. Feasible for you to update those to online references so that they can be independently verified and considered by those deciding whether to approve this entry for notability? If you are using secondary references found online, useful to cite these together with the primary unverifiable source. I’m assuming you are relying on articles available online and not that you happen to have all these dated articles on the subject or dated articles the subject wrote on file for some reason. I’m apologetic if I seem pedantic but it will help the verification process given the wiki requirements for notability. Whycleef (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The articles cannot be linked, but I found them through an online Singapapore newspaper archive, NewspaperSG, which contains some newspaper cuttings but does not have static links. All of the non-linked citations can be verified through there. Indeed, there is an additionally significant amount of coverage of the subject in the newspaper archives (which can be ascertained through WP:GOOG tests), but many of the newspaper articles are unobtainable online and require physical inspection. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I’m not familiar with the portal you linked to. But I did a check on it. Quite a few of the articles you cited requires in person microfilm access to view as they are dated. Was that how you accessed them? If I am wrong on my understanding of the portal, please do share here how the articles can be accessed online as that would help any editor verifying the contents of the references and the notability of the subject a great deal. Whycleef (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Whycleef I believe some articles may be accessible online, whereas other articles are only available at the library. There is an option on the portal to search images of newspaper articles that are available online. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)