Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Mahmood


 * 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 redirect to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election. Per normal practice and per the lack of sourcing identified that indicate coverage separate from the election of independent from his alma mater. Should Mahmood win, an article can be considered at that time. Star  Mississippi  15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilal Mahmood

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

Seeking a redirect to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election. I have done some research into the subject and cleaned the article in recent days. Most coverage appears to be linked to Stanford (his alma mater) or refer to the subject in relation to his candidacy in the 17th district election. Doesn't seem notable to me per WP:POLITICIAN. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete If he wins the assembly race, then he will be notable. Unelected candidates to state legislatures are never notable for that, and the other coverage is not independent enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete -As above - he is only a candidate at this stage, and they aren't inheritently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep -First the article was stripped down in a series of edits which takes significant work to even understand, and then the same editor tries to delete the stripped article days later with an argument that is not in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
 * More specifically, WP:BIO explicitly states that notability is satisfied by "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." and that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" which this article easily does with more than the minimum of 2 sources. This source assessment table of 8 sources (none of which have been mentioned) demonstrates:


 * The idea that no unelected candidate can be notable is a clearly incorrect interpretation of WP:BIO. This incorrect argument focuses only on the fact that such being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability. This is precisely why I decided to not write abandon a draft about the other candidate in this race, which I started drafting first (Draft:Thea Selby). This article, however, clearly meets WP:BIO which is all that is required by WP:NOTE. The two editors who have voted to delete the article have not made any reference at all to the requirements of WP:NOTE, have not assessed or even discussed sources, and have ignored the numerous other notable aspects of the article's subject (founded a company which was acquired by another notable company, crafted a California Green New Deal with the notable author of the original notable Green New Deal, etc. all of which is significantly covered by articles which are independent and reliable, per the source assessment table --Jjersin (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. It's inaccurate to misplace my clean up effort as having "stripped" the article. If you'd like to discuss edits, I'd be more than welcome to discuss the specifics of it. 2. Again, most of the coverage you have listed above are mostly partially referring to Mahmood in relation to the election. That is why I am seeking a redirect because Mahmood's coverage at the moment is mostly derivative of the election news. The reason why there are guidelines like WP:BIO1E and WP:POLITICIAN is to be extra careful with creating articles on people who are not covered outside of the election cycle. To you and other readers, I'd recommend looking over Talk:Shahid_Buttar, a failed candidate for US House of Rep who has been through numerous deletion nominations for further arguments. 3. Furthermore, the assertion that he is notable because he founded a company that was acquired is not necessarily true. Firstly, we have to establish the notability of the company that he founded independent of the acquisition company per WP:INHERITORG before even attempting to establish notability of the founders via that route. 4. Endorsements, broadly speaking, are like WP:NOTNEWS to me. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As a candidate seeking election, he does not currently meet WP:NPOL. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The guidelines state "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The general notability guideline states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Looking at the source assessment table, this page clearly meets that criteria given that there are nine such stories. The guidelines give us no reason to do so, but let's ignore all coverage relating to the election given the responses thus far. If we consider solely his role as CEO of ClearBrain, there are multiple stories in TechCrunch where almost every paragraph features Mr. Mahmood, thus meeting the notability guideline of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources for the individual's role as a notable business leader. Most of the other analyses here are far too shallow giving no consideration of or investigation into the individual's role as a CEO who founded and sold a startup to a billion dollar company. 50.236.12.34 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb, past consensus seems to deem TechCrunch as an iffy source for notability (per WP:TECHCRUNCH). — BriefEdits (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Responses continue to ignore sources and reasons for notability. For example, the creation of a Green New Deal for California with the original author of The Green New Deal has been dismissed as an endorsement, when in reality it's a significant and public legislative proposal . The company Bilal Mahmood founded has been dismissed without attempting to determine it's notability or the notability of his role, , , . Mahmood's notable philanthropic activities, unrelated to his candidacy, have been given no weight . Bilal Mahmood's notable political activities separate from his candidacy have not been considered.


 * In summary, the arguments for deletion are as simplistic as can be, essentially claiming that it is not possible for anyone to be a political candidate and also notable, so this article must be deleted for the sole reason that the subject is a political candidate. This reasoning is fatuous at best, as there are clear counterexamples Christine O'Donnell which are highly notable justify long articles for over a decade. The arguments fail to discuss other reasons for notability on almost any level, completely disregarding analysis of sources, , , , , , , , , which either contradict their arguments, or prove notability separate from the subject's candidacy. Deletion without addressing the arguments for notability themselves, or the sources that prove it, is wrong. --Jjersin (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. When I was talking about the Green New Deal endorsement, I was referring to the article used as an inline citation in the article. Even then, I'm not seeing any coverage pertaining to that, other than the opinion piece that he wrote for the SF Examiner that you linked.
 * The point is that it's not just an endorsement as you had claimed, it's also a policy package, co-created with a notable person, that did get mentioned in the press. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 2. The Chinatown article literally just says that he noticed the story on Twitter. It's kind of a stretch to make it about his "philanthropy".
 * Wrong. It sounds like you didn't read it. That same article also talks about his background as the son of immigrants, his views of the challenges faced by immigrants, and the impact of crime on small business. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 3. I am simply not seeing the notability of him founding a company that happened to be acquired—especially when the principal source is TechCrunch (which is iffy), the secondary source is more about the acquisition, and Y-Combinator coverage is extremely routine for TechCrunch.
 * Again, you're saying TechCrunch is iffy, though I provided 2 other sources, and you're not describing why the 3 TechCrunch sources are inadequate, even though guidelines state they should be handled case by case. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 4. Most if not all political coverage is related to him being a candidate in the CA State Assembly Race (hence the redirect request). No news outlet is going to ask to interview him or quote him if he wasn't involved in the race. Being mentioned in the news for a comment or interviewed does not make him notable enough for his own article when most of his notability is derived from his candidacy. If you want to make the Christine O'Donnell comparison, then show me a level of national or international coverage that Mahmood has received that matches O'Donnell's. — BriefEdits (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's you're just reiterating your earlier point and injecting your opinion about whether news outlets are interested in him for reasons other than his candidacy, again, in the face of several sources to the contrary and the fact that news outlets have been interviewing him since 2013 for other reasons . I'm not making a Christine O'Donnell comparison, her wikipedia article is massive, and that's a straw man of my argument. I'm making a very clear counterpoint to your argument that a political candidate can never be notable.--Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In summary, we have a number of sources which are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage across a number of topics - the subject's company, gates scholarship, philanthropy, as well as his candidacy. On the other side we have an argument that TechCrunch is iffy, a failure to read sources, and an argument that boils down to the idea that articles should be automatically deleted if the subject runs for political office. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I was surprised to see someone who I consider to be famous in the tech community to getting their page deleted. In line with all the policies cited, it seems there are several sources which are reliable and independent across multiple topics and times.Ericatj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep It's clear from the table above that there's more than a trivial amount of coverage about him. I'm obviously biased as another YC founder, but there's an ok amount of references and there's no clear COI. Personally, I know there's a growing community of support for his candidacy, especially in the tech sector, so I don't se any reason this has to go. AnandChowdhary (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 25 January 2022 (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.