Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Siraj Akbar (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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The sole Keep view did not provide any valid argument. But without quorum, this can only be treated as a contested PROD. Feel free to renominate in a month. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Malik Siraj Akbar
AfDs for this article:


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

This BLP, created by a SPA, appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan,  and United States of America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am pinging as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.
 * And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (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.