Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammad Safi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hammad Safi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable columnist and blogger. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Only 3 sources, and they merely mention him as an 11 years old professor. Even considering the age, notability is not met because all the sources mention about the same thing, "his age". The previous nomination for deletion was closed as "keep" although the voters didn't talk about how the article meets Wikipedia Guidelines. The only reason for their votes was that it passes GNG, although it clearly doesn't. How is the coverage about just one single event enough?Knightrises10 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was working on an AfD nomination for this article when I noticed another one had already been created, so I'll add my rationale here: A biography about a child; there are a few sources but I do not believe that he meets WP:GNG yet. Of the three sources, two are based on the same text (not sure if it is a press release, but they cite the same people using the exact same phrasing), and the third is a very brief interview of the subject. That does not amount to significant coverage.  He is not a university lecturer, as claimed in some earlier versions of the article; the University of Spoken English and Computer Science is a language school which uses Safi quite prominently in their advertising (it seems that he he is part of the staff for their programme for children) but it's not an institution of tertiary education. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable columnist, motivational speaker and blogger. Vorbee (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * KEEP I may even argue a Speedy jeep. He meets criteria. Just look at the over 2000 news article mentions here.  I went through the first few pages.  He has more than enough coverage, his age makes him notable.  There maybe only 3 references in the article, does not mean that there are only 3 sources. The article needs to be expanded. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What 2000 news articles would that be? When I click that link I'm taken to a page with 96 hits, and the 12 first links I clicked on were verbatim or slightly re-hashed versions of the same press release that's already in the article (that's also easily seen by the fact that the same press kit photos are used in most of them). If you have specific sources that meet WP:RS, by all means provide them here or add them to the article, but please don't link to a page of search hits, it's not a viable argument. And being young is not part of any notability criteria on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any guideline which says age makes a person notable? Please let me know too. Secondly, all the news sources mention just a single thing. They are written almost same. Thirdly, I can assure you being a Pakistani myself, the videos about that child were circulated as a publicity stunt. You are free to expand the article, but I am sure you won't find anything which will make him pass GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you click this, you will see over 2000 hits. At least I do when I click it. He has enough coverage. It has nothing to do with Pakistan or age, as long as there is coverage he is notable. There IS coverage, hence notable. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the same link as before, so my previous comment stands. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a screenshot, not sure why you are not seeing the over 2000 hits. It says "about 2,500 hits"So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't always display identically for different people. I probably get the exact same hits, but without Google's well-documented estimation error: when you get a huge number of hits in a search, the first thing you should always do is go to the last search page (sometimes a multi-step process) and there you will see the actual number of hits. My guess is that I get the correct number, 96, since my settings specify 100 hits per page - if I'd had 20 I would probabiy have seen Google's wild guess. And that's one reason why referring to a Google search page is not very useful in a deletion debate. (I took the liberty of making the image smaller so it doesn't clutter the page).  My previous comment stands; reprints of a PR are not independent sources (and not news articles), and note that many of the hits are not in fact about Safi at all, but links displaying his name.  --bonadea contributions talk 05:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Search engine test. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep -- has multiple WP:SECONDARY sources. I don't understand the arguments that these multiple sources are insufficient to make him notable.  Please explain what criteria are not met.  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- based on this conversation User_talk:DGG (permalink), and WP:NCORP (search "press release") -- all secondary sources are based on the same press release. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a 10-year-old with charm, poise, Youtube videos and a PR agent, but inadequate INDEPENDENT, ONGOING SIGCOV to pass WP:NOTABILITY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not sure which criteria is yet to meet. He is notable, who has received international coverage from multiple sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No longer convinced. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment what we seem to disagree on here is whether the sources can in fact be called WP:SECONDARY. There are three sources currently in the article, where the first one is an AFP press release published in dawn.com; the second one is from ibtimes.co.in and clearly based on the same press release, using the same press kit photos and quoting the same people we saw in the dawn.com source; while the third is a brief promotional blurb written in a sensationalistic tone. In my WP:BEFORE search I looked through quite a few of the search hits, but everything I found was either evidently (to me, at least) churnalism based on the same AFP press release - translated into other languages, which doesn't make it any less of a press release - or brief notices. There is no doubt that this is a talented and charismatic person, but there is also no doubt that there is a marketing team behind him, and when we are talking about a child, I think the requirements for actual secondary sources needs to be extra high. If there are in fact multiple independent sources about him, it would be good if those could be mentioned here or added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is true the articles in the second two sources are based on the press release, I'm inclined to agree with you. I have seen other AfDs with similar characteristics, and I question the ability of the journalists to be completely objective on such reporting. On the other hand, it seems to me that the acceptance of the material in the press release is a deliberate editorial judgment by the secondary source, including any fact-checking required before publishing in the same way any other material is published.  That is what inclines my choice above to keep, as it still appears to me the WP:GNG requirement is met.  Could you give me two or more other examples at AfD where there were two (or better, even more) reliable secondary sources that were so heavily based on press releases that we rejected the Wiki article's  notability?  Or is there a discussion anywhere where we take churnalism into account in our decisions on notability.  My feeling is that if material based on press releases is a reason to reject secondary sources, we should probably include that in WP:GNG and/or WP:RS if that is going to be the basis of our decisions.  I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal.  --David Tornheim (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am travelling this weekend and will respond properly in a couple of days' time when I've had time to look them up, but the short answer is yes, I have seen that argument carried successfully in AfDs - in fact that's where I first heard the term "churnalism". --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I look forward to it.  --David Tornheim (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I got the answer from here:  User_talk:DGG (permalink).  It's under WP:NCORP (search for "press release") I have changed my vote to delete.  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I pose the same question to you. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bonadea. All I can see is a bursts of  churnalism type news coverage within June 2018 which does not indicate notability. Policy says, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on low profile individuals. Saqib (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you missed the sources from 2017? GenuineArt (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I could only find this paid promotional piece on him in a not so reliable online news website. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Also agree with rebuttals by David Tornheim. This is nomination failed WP:BEFORE because more than 3 sources have significantly covered the subject. GenuineArt (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you please read what Bonadea pointed out? He has expalined thoroughly. It is you who needs to read about Guidelines. Knightrises10 (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did and it makes no sense since there is no involvement of any "marketing team". Your nomination was misleading since more than three sources provided significant coverage contrary to your claim "Only 3 sources, and they merely mention him". GenuineArt (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You even need to read or understand the nomination again. they merely mention him as "an 11 years old professor". Those copied-from-Dawn press releases only tell that he is a kid professor, motivational speaker,etc and nothing else notable. I won't even consider them seperate sources! Knightrises10 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I pose the same question to you as I did to Bonadea above. I believe the guidelines as presently written do not make any exception for secondary sources that restate material that can be traced to press releases.  If there is such an exception, I might be willing to change my vote.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidently, Dawn reported about Safi in June 2018 where as others like ARY News reported about him in 2017. Dawn is just another source that has provided him significant coverage.  GenuineArt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * there is no involvement of any "marketing team" - yes there is, because a) the language schools he is connected to uses him in their marketing, and b) the exact same PR pictures are used in almost every source - very obvious press kit. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that if the language and pics are the same, it is a reasonable assumption it is a result of the work of a PR team, but the question I raise above, which Bonadea says he will respond to, is whether writing in a secondary source which is clearly based on a press release is sufficient to eliminate or diminish its significance in our notability requirements. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS The only reason he is mentioned in the news is that he is a 11 year old kid giving lectures. The kind of "man bites dog" novelty that is expected in a newspaper. The google hits isnt a valid argument. Some of the sources does appear promotional.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per and . &#x222F; WBG converse 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources. Everything is either a frank press release or is based on a press release.
 * 1/The reason press releases do not show notability is straightforward: they are not independent.: the person, or his press agent, or his speak bureau, says whatever they care to.   The reason material based on press releases is not reliable for showing notability is pretty much the same: the source   took what the publicist said, and repeated it. When a newspaper or similar source  does this, it destroys the presumption that what that source says is reliable on that subject.  When 2 or 3 sources use exactly the same words, it doesn't make for stronger evidence, it makes each of them much weaker.  This is not based only on my own personal opinion, it is our standard practice, unchallenged on thousands of AfD discussions for many years.
 * 2/Furthermore. it is rational for us to be especially demanding in terms of reliable sources for people whose notability is that of a a motivational speaker, life coach, or blogger --these are occupations that are largely based on publicity, where there is rarely any other criterion than how much publicity they get--and that shows not their importance, but the quality of their press agent.
 * 3/And there is yet another factor: extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources: extraordinarily strong sources, not extraordinarily weak ones. . That an 11 year old is actually notable in these professions would be extraordinary. Dawn even called him a "professor" -- the likelihood of that being hype is much higher than of it having any connection to actual `notability or significance.  DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 3 October 2018 (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.