Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nik Ariffin Nik Omar


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nik Ariffin Nik Omar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69  11:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN as Prisons Director General (Director General of Prisons) of Malaysia (The Straits Times, 6 September 1989; eresources.nlb.gov.sg). Also called "Nik Ariffin bin Nik Omar". . James500 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN??! Unless, you wish to claim that Director-General-of-prisons is a . &#x222F; WBG converse 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment- Is there a reason this came straight to AfD instead of going through the WP:BLPPROD process? I currently lean towards suggesting deletion for the simple fact it is an unreferenced WP:BLP, but would reconsider if sources were provided. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferenced WP:BLP Not alive, but plainly fails WP:GNG and the position is not one which gives de facto notability under WP:NPOL or any other criteria. SportingFlyer  talk  10:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course very senior officials like the head of a country's prison system are notable. Common sense. I have added a reference to confirm that he did indeed hold the position. How hard would it have been for the "unreferenced BLP" brigade to do this? Took me all of ten seconds to find a ref on Google. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , how hard would it be for the of-course brigade to claim their fact? It's plainly delusional that every top-tier-executive of a country is notable........ &#x222F; WBG converse 12:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'll notice if you reread what I said above (and look at the article again) that I did! You think it's delusional for the head of a major country's entire prison system to be considered notable? Especially when we have articles on every minor celebrity who appears briefly to warble a tune, shoot their mouth off on YouTube or kick a ball around a field. The "logic" of that frankly beggars belief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see the guideline that says so, and if you can't find one, I certainly think you'd need more than one primary source. SportingFlyer  talk  19:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? It confirms he held the position and the position is clearly notable. Do we really want Wikipedia to degenerate into a collection of articles on minor celebrities who've been dribbled over on the internet for a few months while ignoring people who have held very senior positions but who aren't so "interesting" to the fanboys and girls who dominate social media? I certainly don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you need to read that other shit can exist.No SNG supports your stance that all top-tier executive positions are default-notable, shall they be verifiable.If you wish for such a guideline, it's thatway. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you probably need to recognise how long I've been here before you suggest I read things that I've been familiar with for years. Otherwise you could appear to be patronising. It's common sense that supports my position, not some rule, since, as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is not bound by rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Is probably notable, but only has 1 source. There might be more in offline sources. Changed to Delete,   is all I could find &raquo;  Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  20:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment that single source is also primary. There's no automatic notability for any leader of a prison system - not under WP:NPOL certainly, and I'm not sure under what other grounds. If he's alive, there are also WP:BLP1E concerns. SportingFlyer  talk  19:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly doesn't qualify under BLP1E in any way. What is the "one event" he is notable for? He's notable for having a notable career, not for one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Deceased in any case. Added a couple more sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Even after that, none of the sources in the article are WP:RS. Now two are primary and one is from a genealogy website. SportingFlyer  talk  18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Government websites are most certainly considered to be reliable sources for confirmation of the holders of government positions and their careers. We have never held otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that the information is unreliable, it is that the source is WP:PRIMARY for someone who doesn't get a notability waiver. SportingFlyer  talk  06:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and I find the claim that everyone in such a position is notable. Please... CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please what? So, the head of the national prison system in, say, Britain or the US wouldn't be notable? Please... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think that if we hold all general and flag officers of all national armed forces to be notable, as we do, then it makes no sense for us not to hold the most senior officer of another national uniformed service to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: a position of "Director General of Prisons of the Malaysian Prison Department" does not appear to meet WP:NPOL. It has not generated WP:SIGCOV to meet ANYBIO either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment How about Murad Ahmad and Wan Mohamad Nazarie Wan Mahmood? Both articles were created by User:Wanfahmi57. Panji Keramat (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete since subject is not a politician but a state functionary, in which case, of course, WP:NPOLITICIAN does not apply but we go by WP:GNG. Which subject fails. No two ways about it. And let me just say that the argument made above that suggestions here are NOT supposed to be formulated on the basis of policy but on what we like, presented as "common sense," is a typical misuse of the no-rules "rule" and mind boggling. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with the fact that common sense would dictate that such senior officials, even in countries that don't plaster everything over the internet, even in eras that existed before the internet (yes, believe it or not, there was such a thing and its inhabitants are valid subjects for articles!), are notable. Ask yourself, would the head of the prison system in a modern Western country be considered notable? The answer is clearly yes, since their careers would be all over the internet. So therefore, by applying the logic of the posters above, we are by definition discriminating against individuals who do not fall into this category, whether that's because they come from developing countries or because they're not active today or both. Frankly, to me, it's "mind boggling" that some editors are incapable of seeing this (although given the growing and frankly worrying obsession on Wikipedia with slavishly obeying "rules", which we don't actually have, and being uncomfortable with anything that doesn't comfortably fit into the "rules", I'm honestly not surprised). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On policy, in general : Sorry but I cannot agree with discounting all rules on the basis of some fuzzy "common sense." AfDs are decided on the basis of policy and guidelines, having always in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not an indiscriminate collection of data, much as that would please some editors. The relevant guideline, WP:DELPRO, elevates following policy to a major concern (see conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, etc). And there is nothing "slavish" or "blind"  about following policy here.
 * As to your argument about the article per se, again, we have to go by sources as they exist right now, be they offline or online. We live in the internet age but this does not exclude pre-internet sources from being used or from being considered reliable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.