Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Mujeeb


 * 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Abdul Mujeeb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable YouTuber. I moved it to draft to allow the paid editor more time to edit but they moved it to mainspace again. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. (nn) - Flori4nK T A L K  20:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm getting paid to do this work, and I also researched a lot before. So, yes, I clearly saw He (Abdul Mujeeb) is notable enough to be on Wikipedia Encyclopedia. I put it back to live, because I reviewed that again and thought it's good to go right now. So, as for the deletion, think it would be different enough as He is still notable. I again search out for him on YouTube as Abdul Mujeeb and his all videos were on the screen. There in article I've mentioned that he is known for, as famous for, his channel name: "Mujeebi Saazish" and yes that's him. Second thing is that his Facebook followers too, as famous as Mujeebi Saazish, thou, he's itself Abdul Mujeeb, and got famous because of "Mujeebi Saazish". I would like to request you to take off the Nomination for Deletion decision and please review it again. It's still notable. I would also like to add some references from authenticated news stories too and some authenticated interviews too. Thank you so much for your reconsideration but that was all what I saw. Kindly have a look at it, would really be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple issues here. Firstly, as the paid editor, you do not review the article. That's why the WP:AfC process was made. You cannot view the article in a neutral way due to your bias. It does not matter how you view the article, it matters how it complies (or doesn't) with the Wikipedia guidelines. As already explained to you, this article fails WP:GNG as he does not have multiple, significant coverage in independent sources. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on it that I cannot view the article in a neutral way due to my bias, but was stuck at this, that I could clearly see enough notablity and yes, I've also viewed all of the Wikipedia guidelines and if it wasn't supposed to be put here, I would never. Though, please let me review it again, while as you're talking about some issues, I would also review them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you cannot review it. I gave you a chance in draft space and you moved it to mainspace. Therefore, I will let the community decided if the article fits our guidelines or not. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NENT. I can't find any reliable secondary coverage of this person, and the article only references facebook, instragram, and twitter (plus useless "refs" such as linking to University of Karachi's homepage to support claim of Mujeeb's academic credentials and a "ref" to a map of Karachi Bar Association to support claim about his father's credentials). edit to add: I've looked at the two new references provided by the article creator below. Trendicpro is the personal project of "Hey My name is “Hafiz Mudassir” and i am a software engineer this site is made on interest base.I made it by own self and use it to share the viral and trending news about the world mostly news in the Pakistan and other Asia countries."...not reliable source. Timebulletin doesn't seem any more reliable; the types of articles on that site and the quality of the writing are dubious.  Schazjmd   (talk)  21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So what do you mean there? If an entrepreneur is taking his own website or news channel to the audience, that means, it isn't that reliable and having it on BBC World, is only a reliable source?
 * , if you genuinely want to learn, read Reliable sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable internet personage per nom. Intended to nominate this myself earlier today but RL intervened. Eagleash (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is first source of his independent news coverage: https://trendicpro.com/conflict-between-junaid-akram-and-abdul-mujeeb/ This is the second source of his independent news coverage: https://www.timebulletin.com/khawar-malik-claimed-his-copyright-on-people-using-his-content-in-their-videos/ I've even mentioned that He is a social media celebrity and is already growing up enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right but this isn't multiple, significant coverage. It's a one time occurrence. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No, they're two different events and yes, that was what made me to work for him, and more to go. Actually, me and my team member is still working on research. As, I've put on these two, there will be more indeed and you can visit those pages too to see when they were published. That is now what, multiple time occurrence and yes there's another incident, that "RVCJ Media" who have verified page on Instagram and Facebook used his (Abdul Mujeeb's) video and content on their own page as a media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

*Keep. Well at a point he is right. The sources are authentic and the articles published on those two websites were okay to review. I also checked it by myself and it is good to go live in the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElSAMEdits (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)  - Struck as a sockpuppet --Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User has made no contributions outside of this AfD
 * , I'm not sure what you mean by "authentic". Wikipedia's requirement is that sources be reliable. In what way are those reliable sources? Schazjmd   (talk)  23:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , here reliable are the sources the article editor or the subject is using. He is notable person as I live in Pakistan and here, the subject is much known to a lot of us. Many social media celebrities have been with the subject and this is how real life works. Social media celebrities are always on their social medias and about the event/news coverage, they are also visible there too but much as like HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN or A PERSON ON TELEVISION SCREEN ALWAYS. He is an artist and in his world, he is doing good. He almost have about million of fans and a lot. That is what the editor wants to say in this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElSAMEdits (talk • contribs)
 * , a source isn't reliable just because someone uses it. I realize you're enthusiastic about the article subject, but decisions on notability are determined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because something is published on the Internet doesn't make it a reliable source. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly something published on Internet doesn't make it a reliable source, but the subject is a Social Media celebrity and not a politician or a movie star, but is a social media worker and he almost have million fans and that is what I am talking about. He is indeed notable on YouTube, Facebook, Google Search and other places as well, if the news article above are not reliable as per few here are saying then trust me news article would never be there. NR3C is already working and having an eye on all the news websites.
 * and Just so you know, sockpuppets will be disregarded when it comes time to find consensus. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I am not the one you're considering. Supporting someone doesn't mean he is that person himself. As well, okay let me say, all those who said Delete, are your accounts!
 * I'm just saying you made your account two mins before commenting on this AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So as per your saying, that means I am ? Not at all, please stop judging. I use Wikipedia a lot and I saw List of Pakistan-related Deletion and it was on the top. I just decided to contribute Wikipedia community. Here's how I made the account. :)


 * Delete per nom. Nothing here and sourced with a bunch of unreliable junk. Anything that is reliable is unrelated. or shows no depth of coverage. It should also be noted that even if notability is clearly demonstrated (which I don't see hapenning), then this article would still be subject to draftify as it was made by a paid editor who did not properly go through the AfC process. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NENT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * delete I'm surprised this was sent to AFD instead of deleted as G3, since all the sources are garbage and it's basically a hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - After reading this AfD, I have taken the liberty of opening a Sockpuppet investigation regarding and . They have each been notified on their talkpages. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have sent it to CSD, no claim of notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.