Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeel Chaudhry (food connoisseur)


 * 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. G5, but also consensus trending in that direction. Star  Mississippi  12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Adeel Chaudhry (food connoisseur)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Main claim to fame appears to be "first Pakistani food connoisseur to be featured in Forbes", but that article is a "contributor" piece, a self-published source as noted in WP:FORBESCON. The other articles appear to be similar PR efforts. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I would consider anything written by Sonya Rehman (a past Fullbright Scholar in Journalism and a former Pulitzer-Moore Fellow at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism) as reliable given her pedigree as a journalist and subject matter expert in arts and culture journalism. She's written for the The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera. Time, etc. I don't think there is a strong argument to be made here against the Forbes article in terms of reliability. I would consider this as one high quality source towards passing WP:SIGCOV based on who the author is per WP:FORBESCON and the content. However, none of the other sources contain significant coverage and are fluffy self-promotional pieces. As such we lack multiple sources with independent significant coverage and the topic fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with @4meter4, if the discussion is about Forbes article as a "Contributor piece". Seeing the previous publications of Sonya Rehman, It is hard to tell if the contribution was made under with personal interests. I would also say that Gulf Today reference is also considered as reliable. I would accept the final decision of the administrator but these references along with Advisor to Government's reference should be considered.
 * Piturru (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. TEDx and BBC Asian Network references
 * Piturru (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Promotional attempts, both the articles in forbes and gulf today are not coverage as such but are promotional. Nothing else can be found that states them as a significant contribution to their field. I am not sure, for what we can claim them as notable? as a vlogger. entrepreneur? Everything fails WP:GNG. QueerEcofeminist🌈  16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. As told by the user @4meter4 and my personal research it will be accurate to say Sonya Rehman's written article to be reliable passing WP:SIGCOV. Gulf Today as per saying was not a promotional article because of it being conducted via local survey a local Survey Conducted -Gulf Today, no hyperlink indications were seen if it was advertorial. Local news as per wikipedia notability can be promotional. There is no indication of him being an entrepreneur or a vlogger either, Particularly known for the style of representation of food. He should be considered as a chef and restaurateur instead. Piturru (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Piturru, you have yet to address the WP:PAID question on your talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * CU comment I have blocked the article's author, Piturru, as a CU-confirmed sock of a blocked editor. I have no doubt that this article was created for undisclosed payments, and it would be eligible for G5 deletion, but since some editors have already commented here I guess the discussion can run its course. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above as the subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Sahaib (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2023 (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.