Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabahat Ali Shah


 * 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. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Shabahat Ali Shah

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable businessman. Article was written to praise the subject rather than describe him neutrally. Article is about what he says about himself and not what third parties say about him. Naïve Google search gets a full page of hits on his social media presence, which means that he exists and uses social media. We knew that. No third-party coverage by reliable sources is found.

Article was draftified once by User:Herpetogenesis with the note that it was spam-like, and the comment: 'Rewrite needed'. It has been moved back into article space with the notation that it has been rewritten, but it has not been rewritten, only slightly modified, mostly by expanding, and it still contains puffery, such as "well-known technology expert", "expert in building sustainable business strategies to transform organizations". The puffery could be taken out, but would not leave much.

Author was given COI notice by User:Captain Calm on 7 November, and has not made a disclosure. Aside from quacking like a duck showing off her ducklings, the image of the subject contains the note: "this Pic Was Taken by My Self in The Officia Of The Syed Shabahat Ali Shah". I believe that. Author is probably a publicist or employee for the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet notability requirements. It does meet some of my criteria for WP:G11 at User:Deepfriedokra/promo. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 05:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is very informative. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum Creator asked me to look again at article. It's still WP:ARTSPAM and the added ref's do not cover the subject in significant depth. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 08:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello sir . How You Are Saying That, Article was written to praise the subject rather than describe him neutrally. Article is about what he says about himself and not what third parties say about him  I Have Addedd 15 Refrences From the Google News, And Government Website Links , in Which You Can Find that The information Written about the person is From the news Website Author ,Not From The Person Himself This Article Should Not be Deleted , If We Made any misstake You Should Correct The Misstake And Also Let Me Know How i Can Improve , You Are Our Teacher And You Need to Tell Me My mistake , So Please Again I Am requesting to you that let me know whats is the problem , the main problem was Pic , so i just removed the pic and all other information i where collected from the google you can also search :) thanks alot Kindly remove the tag from the article will be very thankuflly for you

and also @Deepfriedokra Thanks alot for giving me good ideas about article :) i am very thankuflly for you
 * Translation please? This is difficult to parse. Did someone write the article for you? HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Unambiguous promotion with COI issues. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2020 (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.