Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshad Khan (Chaiwala)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This was a tough one; my hat is off to for keeping it running this long. Views expressed here are passionate, and seem evenly divided. But upon closer inspection, almost all the "Keep" !votes rely on irrelevant reasons. Yes, the guy certainly exists, as is supported by a plethora of reliable sources, and I'm sure he is very popular. But none of that counters the basic problem of WP:1E. At this point, the man has not achieved notability that is independent from that one event. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Arshad Khan (Chaiwala)

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

A non-notable tea seller, looks like the creator is just advertising about the new Cafe started by the subject. I think, one person is getting viral everyday but this does not help them to be Notable. Hence, fails WP:GNG. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople,  and Pakistan. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: BBC is fine, this source as well is a RS. Going viral is a thing now, we can keep articles about people attaining fame this way. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Subject passes WP:Sigcov.Maliner (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: WP:1E coverage mostly, and later non-significant stories building on that 1E, not notable enough. WP is not a place to track life stories of people who were once famous on the internet. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete:Look like WP:SINGLEEVENT, not notable right now Worldiswide (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:1E and even weak SIGCOV for that 1E.  // Timothy :: talk  00:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep He is very popular person. Fahads1982 (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's table the issue of how this subject became notable and focus on sources that establish notability. Right now, this is looking like a No consensus closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: He is not among people notable for only one event. He went viral by chance then he became a professional model for brands, he did music videos as a model, and now he opens a cafe. On his every achievement, he has good media coverage. So, WP:IE does not apply here. Pakistani and international media cover him. Even Indian news sources which are RS, cover him.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Most of the Keeps are votes without substantial reasoning.
 * 1 listed by Oaktree is just a story on WP:1E event. The famous chaiwala might be from Afghanistan. (Bold is 1E, Italics is the coverage).
 * While there may have been significant coverage on the subject, but it is still WP:SIGCOV of WP:1E
 * is a very popular person is WP:STRAWMAN argument.
 * If he is a professional model (and went viral by chance), the WP:RS should mention as such, instead of building story on the WP:1E event (as shown above).
 * Therefore, there is no substantial keep. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: When every source goes, "Hey, remember that guy whose photo went viral? Here's what he's doing now!" it's overwhelmingly WP:1E. Modeling and owning cafes aren't typically notable and the few media stories that cover his activities only exist because of the single event. Agree with the editor above that the keep votes are mostly non-arguments; see WP:POPULARITY and WP:FAME. Uhai (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. 13 reliable publications from 5 different countries are there to meet Basic. I am pretty sure that 13 reliable publications from 5 different countries are not in Arshad's pocket to promote him or get him a Wikipedia article! Clear case of Sigcov. Okoslavia (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the light of WP:PRIMARYNEWS, what, if any, of those 13 sources are secondary sources? From WP:BASIC: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No one here is alleging this is promotion and your argument doesn't address the concern of WP:1E. There can exist many reliable sources and it can still be 1E. Uhai (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete- It is not that this person cannot be notable. Models can be notable, and notability might be achieved for other reasons too. The problem here is it is WP:TOOSOON to say whether this person will be notable or just a 1E footnote. There are 13 sources in the article, which the better keep arguments have addressed. One of them is the BBC. However, no attention has been given to the fact that these are primary sources (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS) They are news reports about someone becoming a model because of a photograph. Whether you class that as events or human interest stories, these are primary. These do not count towards notability. There have been a string of keep votes that are not based in policy, but the policy reasons for keep have argued notability. Sourcing does not back up those arguments. Fails WP:GNG. Again, this may just be TOOSOON. Deletion now should be without prejudice to re-creation of the article in the future if secondary sources clearly establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 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.