Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Sardar


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahmad Sardar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ONEEVENT. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Subject clearly passes WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Significant coverage in the reliable sources (Yahoo, Voa, Guardian, Cnn, Hrw, Time, Channel4, Nst, etc). The article requires a little expansion to cover all his related works, not deletion. He is not notable for a single event as the nominator cites it for a reason of deletion. As reported by Yahoo news,
 * "His last feature for AFP, filed on Tuesday, was about a lion called Marjan, rescued by animal welfare officials from living on a rooftop in Kabul. That was a follow-up to a story Ahmad himself broke last year, generating headlines around the world."


 * "He wrote in the feature: "Marjan is named after a famous half-blind lion who lived at Kabul zoo and became a symbol of Afghanistan's national survival after living through coups, invasions, civil war and the hardline Taliban era before dying in 2002."


 * "Ahmad showed his entrepreneurial bent by founding Kabul Pressistan, a successful local news agency that has provided fixing and translation services for numerous foreign reporters coming to Kabul."


 * There are many similar events quoted by various reliable sources that falsify the nominator's claim and establish notability of the subject and suggests subject suitable for inclusion. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some more sources here, Nyt, Dailymail, Latimes, Official AFP blog. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . While the article may pass WP:GNG and WP:BLP, per WP:BASIC,
 * "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."


 * The fact, furthermore, that an article is created for the subject only after his death, and that all reliable sources available are primarily devoted to covering the event surrounding his death should be indicative of the subject's otherwise lack of sufficient notability. None of the quotes presented above, in addition, exhibit sufficient notability to warrant an article. Information about the subject is best presented in separate articles on the shooting event and the news agency he founded, if either should be found notable. M. Caecilius (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject is neither notable for a single event nor it falls under WP:NOT. Please review sources given above or do a simple google search. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'd like to voice my objection to the above commentator's condescending suggestions, both of which I had, in fact, performed earlier and which led to my belief that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines.
 * That being said, none of the quotes the above user cited for establishing notability is sufficient. The fact remains that, with no offence meant, had this journalist not died in a memorable event, there would not be this preponderance of sources the article is relying solely upon, and the notability of his deeds would have been called into question much more easily, which qualifies him squarely within WP:ONEEVENT.
 * Finally, I would point out that I had, in fact, never appealed to WP:NOT, which is only included in the above note in disjunction to WP:ONEEVENT and can be ignored for our purposes. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Another contributor above makes the questionable assertion that the fact that the article was only created after his death proves he is only known for a single event.
 * This assertion is questionable because it assumes the massively false assumption that we already have articles about every living individual who meets our notability criteria.  This is not even close to being true.  While there are lots of AFD, for instance, for academics who do not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMICS they would be dwarfed by the number of senior academics who would meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMICS for whom we don't have articles.
 * Very few of the individuals for whom we keep standalone articles had their wikipedia notability established by a single notability factor. Almost all our BLPs had their wikipedia notability established by adding up the inherent notability of partial notability factors.  As per WP:ACADEMICS being recognized as a a leading member of one's field by one's professional peers is a strong notability factor.  Ahmad Sardar being interviewed by less experienced war reporters is a kind of recognition by his professional peers.  I think someone could have started an article about Sardar, prior to his death.  I think if it had been brought to AFD, his notability would have been right on the cusp, and that discussion could have gone either way.  But his assassination is a strong notabilty factor, and added to the other factors, should establish his notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose the above commentator's contention that I made any suggestion to the effect that no article should be created after a person's death, but solely that the present situation, which is that (and I don't believe that anyone has yet refuted this satisfactorily) the subject has only come into the spotlight of reliable sources by virtue of his notable death, is a strong indicator that we need to examine closely whether the individual fits WP:ONEEVENT. Certainly there are individuals who, by our omission, are notable but not included in this encyclopaedia at the time of death. That being said, the subject in question here is not one such example.
 * Moreover, "being interviewed by less experienced war reporters" is a rather weak criterion. I need scarcely to point out that this criterion would lead to the inclusion of patently non-notable people. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every single reference is connected to his death, which supports the nominator's contention that this is a ONEEVENT. If someone could present some source independent of that event, I'd be open to changing my lvote. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . As I have noted somewhere in the discussion above, I would support creating an article on the bombing event, which is clearly notable in itself, as the sources currently presented in the article in question demonstrate. Information about the subject is then best presented in the article on the event, as well as an article on the press organization he had founded, if that organization should be found notable. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to event article. I understand the "ONEVENT" claim, but we should also remember that people's lives are often first publicly documented on their deaths. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Re-direct since he does seem to be notable just for the one event. Above all else, I vote against deletion, since its a notable event worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Orser67 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to event article.  Gurumoorthy Poochandhai  16:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a one event article, and its very existence just adds to the undue emphasis on recent events that is one of Wikipedia's major problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not wholly convinced by this sort of recentism argument. While we need more coverage of people like Fanny Butterfield Newell the idea that we should obtain some sort of parity by deleting recent stuff, if taken to its logical extension is absurd.  There are English kings about whom all we know (and that uncertainly) is their name, parentage, kingdom and (very) approximate dates of reign - should we then reduce all monarch articles to  this level? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC).


 * This is an obvious "slippery slope" fallacy, as WP:ONEEVENT does not say anything about parity or the coverage of English monarchs. If this guideline itself is in dispute, then the best venue to discuss that would certainly not be this AfD discussion. M. Caecilius (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2014 (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.