Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (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. A few WP:ITSNOTABLE comments do not address the fact, pointed out by others, that there is no reliable in-depth sourcing in this BLP. If anyone would like a go at rescuing it, let me know and I'll move the content back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet the notability criteria set out on. Contained unreliable and questionable sourced which have been removed since they cannot be used as citations. Blatant promotion written by a by socks of indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer Akbaralighazi. Saqib (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be coverage in some news sources.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have we decide to keep the bio, lets curate it as per reliable sources available on web. I have created the Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. The bio can be further expanded using this source which mentions that he have recieved many awards but I'm sure not sure if those awards not noteworthy enough ? --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cold stop. Those are not reliable sources.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that in the news sources that Mar4d has cited above that both The Dardistan Times and The Express Tribune are being controlled by the sockmaster and his meatpuppets and are COI fluff pieces themselves. This and this are written by blocked meats (check the authorship) and the Dardistan Times may now be sent to RSN as unreliable. Likewise, this piece was authored by a blocked meat and the article subject who supplied the photo. <== The Express Tribune is therefore unreliable and the listing for The International News doesn't have any attribution and looks suspect as unreliable. And the BBC source and two others in your list do not mention him at all. That list is a brilliant argument to Delete.
 * I don't consider the Express Tribune as unreliable source, though we can question the accuracy of reporting. The subject may have approached the journalists for press coverage. I didn't liked the fluff piece by Daily Pakistan which reads "He is a freelance contributor and pioneer of Khowar Wikipedia and writes in Khowar language articles for Wikimedia foundation." Seriously, is he pioneer of Wikipedia? Anyways Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG and everything else. There's not a single reliable source, independent of the subject, providing in-depth coverage of the subject, let alone the multiple such reliable sources that would be required. I can add that before I cleaned/pruned it, it was the worst self-promotional puffery piece, bordering on hagiography, that I have ever seen here on en-WP... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your critique on the sources, though I do not agree with your assessment that The Express Tribune is unreliable. ET is one of the two largest English dailies in Pakistan (the other being Dawn) and is a very prominent mainstream source. The subject is covered in detail in the following article also: Khowar language: Keys of preservation. Furthermore, a basic search of the subject's name in Urdu yields some of the following results: Deutsche Welle, UrduPoint , ARY News , Geo Urdu , Chitral , News Tribe  etc. Just putting these forward per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to avoid over-reliance on English sources. I do agree however that the article should be cleansed from anything self-promotional or hagiographic in tone.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Express Tribune failed verification of sources on this article. Note the posted comment in 2014 where sources were requested..."Great work. Is there any source to verify the claims? No doubt it is a great piece of work but we live in a country where water-run car made to TV and print media. I failed to get an authentic verification of a reliable source. Someone?". I'm not judging them for all matters here on WP but for this they fail. Since the article cites The Dardistan Times then there is no reason to treat that as a RS. No comment on the others...yet.
 * I am surprised you citing "geourdu.com", "timesofchitral.com", and "thenewstribe.com" as a source. I consider all of them as unreliable. By the way, "geourdu.com" and Geo TV are not related to each other. Also, I would never cite "urdupoint.com" as a source on BLP's. On a different note, I hope you are aware that recently the community has banned the usage of the Daily Mail as unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. As I clarified above, the links I added were extracted from a basic search as a starting point. I will need to take another look regarding the reliability of the Geo and News Tribe etc. links, as (at first glance) they just appear to be normal Urdu articles covering the subject. Also, I am pretty sure Daily Mail wasn't in the discussion. Actually, DM doesn't even have an Urdu version (unless I'm mistaken). Maybe you are confusing it with Deutsche Welle.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My point of referring to the Daily Mail ban here is to indicate that we should be cautious about citing any other news website as a source, in particularly on BLP's. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- a promotional CV on a subject of unknown (likely limited) notability. WP:PROMO / WP:TNT outweighs any marginal notability the subject might have. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject appears notable. In addition, this subject has already survived a previous AfD with a Keep. Should not have been brought up for another AfD in the first place.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Promotional article. Thus, delete. Also, the sources aren't independant/reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per SouthernNights.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 20:12, 29 April 2017 (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.