Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qasim Riza Shaheen


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 09:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Qasim Riza Shaheen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an artist, written like a cross between a résumé and a public relations advertisement and citing exactly zero references except for a contextless linkfarm of primary sources in the external links section. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article, regardless of their field of endeavour — it takes reliable source coverage, but none of that has been shown here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source this properly. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont see any issues with the article. It talks about an artist like all other pages for artists. Message the writer with issues on the page instead of deletion keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirakhatriii (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In order to be included in Wikipedia, an article has to be referenced to reliable source coverage in media which is independent of him — but virtually all of the sourcing here is to primary sources which cannot carry a person's notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is really bad and most of the sources/links don't demonstrate any notability at all, but this Last Known Pose book suggests that there might be something there - I'm not sure though. Is this a case of TNT (destroy article that would be more work to revise than to write from scratch), Bearcat, or do you think he is not notable? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep. References have been added to demonstrate the notability of the artist and the importance of his work. Please share constructive comments on how to improve this article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueljervois (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are virtually all still primary sources (his own website, the webpages of galleries with which he's been directly affiliated, etc.), and fail to constitute reliable source media coverage which is independent of his own public relations materials. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. kindly note that the references on which this article is based "constitute reliable source media coverage". The Guardian, The Times of India, The Artists Information Company, Flux Magazine, Manchester Evening News, Art Fund, The Reviews Hub, Art Now Pakistan, The Hindu, 2nd Generation, Creative Tourist, Manchester Wire amongst others are "independent of his own public relations materials." The artist has many publications to his name and this article is meant to inform those who are interested to learn more about his practice objectively. Further contributions by other readers are welcome to highlight his work. =====  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirakhatriii (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that you're overstating how "referenced" the article really is. There isn't, for example, a single reference to The Guardian anywhere in the article; that publication is mentioned only as the provider of a POV review quote which is sourced nowhere, and doesn't actually belong in our article at all per our rules about not turning the article into an advertisement for the subject instead of an encyclopedia article about the subject. Art Fund is a charitable organization, not media. Creative Tourist and The Reviews Hub and Manchester Wire fail our rules against sourcing to blogs. The reference to The Hindu isn't about him; it just mentions his name a single time as a passing namecheck in an article that's actually about somebody else. And on and so forth — nothing here comes anywhere near as close to being "reliable source media coverage" as you seem to think it does. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bearcat Seems a bit harsh. Presumably the Guardian think he is notable enough to mention an exhibition he is involved in. I agree it isn't enough, but it isn't nothing either (given that there are a lot of exhibitions which could be mentioned, and they've mentioned these).   I don't think an article in a well-known media source which is written by journalists and is not an "opinion piece" can be considered to be a "POV article". Of course, one can disagree with the authors that this exhibition is notable, but the fact is that writers for this newspaper working in the normal editorial system think that this artist is notable. That meets the standard for independent assessment of notability. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're completely missing the point of what I even said about The Guardian: the most important point, the one you didn't address here at all, is that no reference details have been cited to verify that they really published the claimed content — it's just plopped into the article as an unsourced quote. Which means we can't verify whether it was made in an actual article about him, in a 50-word "things to do this weekend" blurb, as an aside in an article about somebody else, or what. And as an encyclopedia, we're not all that interested in the opinions that reviewers have expressed about the quality of his work anyway, but in what media have or haven't published about the objective facts of his career — because a Wikipedia article is not allowed to read like a public relations advertisement. And the standard for "independent assessment of notability" is that he has to be the subject of substantive coverage (not passing mentions in coverage of other things, not ten word review quotes, but substantive coverage) in multiple reliable sources (not just one). But the sourcing that's been proffered here so far fails to demonstrate that at all — it takes more than "has had his name mentioned in major newspapers" to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I don't understand. I'm not here talking about how a quote from the Guardian piece has been used in on the page, but the fact that the Guardian article exists. Which it does. And no, we're not just interested in the "objective facts of his career" primarily, but whether this artist is notable enough to have a wikipedia page about him. One criteria for the latter decision is whether he is noted in the media, and clearly this is a note in the media about his exhibition. It is clearly also more than a "mention" given it is a review of his exhibition with the clear implication that readers might like to go and witness his exhibition. That in and of itself is a claim to notability. Not enough on its own, I agree, but certainly something pointing toward it. JMWt (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And what you've shown there is an 85-word blurb about him, which does not constitute substantive coverage. And every art exhibition that exists at all will be believed by somebody as something that "readers might like to go and witness" — but that's not a thing that entitles a person to a Wikipedia article, because it's a subjective statement of opinion. Our inclusion criteria are based on objective and quantifiable achievements, such as winning notable art awards or being the subject of enough media coverage that the person has satisfied WP:GNG, not just the ability to demonstrate that the person exists. But an 85-word blurb constitutes evidence of existence, not evidence of notability — especially if that 85-word blurb is the most solid source anywhere in the entire article. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After having researched this artist's work and read all his publications at the British Library and Live Art Development Agency's study room, it is evident how extensively his work has been written about by eminent scholars and academics. Cornerhouse publications have a significant book in the pipeline to be published this year celebrating his work over the last 20 years through a collection of essays and reflections. LADA is also releasing a DVD of his video works. The artist was nominated for the Northern Art prize in 2010. Notability is surely about contribution to knowledge rather than media endorsements alone. User:Samueljervois

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:25, 30 November 2015 (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.