Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahveer Jafry


 * 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. Likes are not a measure of notability... Spartaz Humbug! 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Shahveer Jafry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a YouTube comedian, making no strong claim of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER and citing no strongly reliable source coverage — the "referencing" here is to a user-generated public relations database to which anybody can submit a profile of themselves, and two Q&A-style interviews in which the subject is talking about himself. The interviews would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article had already been sourced over WP:GNG, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves — and Wivki is an entirely unacceptable source for anything at all. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON for an article about somebody who might qualify in the future — but nothing written or sourced here gets him an article today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:5150:7AA0:4299:3F85 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge to List of YouTubers or a similar list per the two reliable interviews of this guy. I'll agree it's a bit too early to have an article on this guy given the too few reliable sources for a standalone article and Wivki is an unreliable source, but deleting any info about this subject entirely would be bullshit because the two interviews are still from independent publications and wouldn't have been written if he had not gotten popular the way he did. It's not like you can just be a random user who can just ask for these independent, reliable newspapers and magazines to have an Q&A interview with you. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī
 * Keep I disagree with the nomination. It will be wrong to say this person non-notable. He has over a million likes on his Facebook page and over 10 million views on many of his videos and the person has been interviewed by a major English newspaper Pakistan Today as well. The article is short with few references but the person is notable.--  Musa Talk  ☻ 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No number of likes or views or listens or retweets on any social media platform gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, if WP:GNG is not met on the basis of the sourcing present in the article — and interviews do not count toward the meeting of GNG. And neither does the Milton Villager, a local community weekly newspaper with no distribution outside its own small city. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The article passes WP:ENTERTAINER. A person is interviewed by a major newspaper and gets featured on the cover of a magazine and you call him non-notable. That's totally not fair. This article should be kept because of his popularity as WP:GNG says that the person should get significant coverage and he have over million followers.--  Musa Talk  ☻ 05:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm correct. Interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself, do not count toward establishing notability under WP:GNG — people can and do make inflated and self-aggrandizing claims about themselves, so if a person could get a Wikipedia article by talking about himself we'd have to keep a Wikipedia article about every single person who has a social media profile (i.e. almost every single person who exists on the entire planet.) To establish notability, other people who are independent of his own PR machine, and don't have a vested interest in his career, have to be writing or talking about him in the third person. And a million, billion, trillion or squintillion likes on a social media platform does not give a person an exemption from having to be properly sourced — for one thing, there really is an entire industry out there devoted to inflating social media followings through the use of fake profiles and automated multiple reclicks and robot-retweets. The number of clicks a piece of social media content gets can be manipulated — and even if we do take it at face value, we still have no way to properly verify whether a million different people viewed a video once each or whether just one person viewed that video a million times, or any combination of viewers and repeat views anywhere in between. So it cannot be a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage by which we can properly verify the article's content. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't fails WP:GNG. I still disagree with the nomination. A million likes shows notability but if you don't like it. You can see interview of the person in Pakistan Today and a magazine and in these interviews the interviewers have also stated about this person. You can see the title of Milton Villager source. WP:GNG says speedy delete the article if it fails the guidelines but this person doesn't completely fails the notability guidelines. You should just add the tag instead of deleting as written in WP:GNG. And I don't know why you think he's non-notable while having a million followers. WP:ENT says that the person should have a large fan base and he has got a large fan base but you're not ready to accept it. And if you think sources are insufficient you should add the tag  instead of deleting. A person has been interviewed three different times which shows he has coverage through reliable sources and also has large fan base. This article should be KEPT as it passes these guidelines. I'm sorry but I disagree with you.--   Musa Talk  ☻ 09:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with what I personally like or don't like — I dislike lots of people (Stephen Harper, Donald Trump, etc.) who absolutely qualify for Wikipedia articles, and I like lots of people who don't. What this is about is Wikipedia's rules about how any person gets a Wikipedia article. Regardless of whether I like them or don't like them or never even heard of them before, a person gets a Wikipedia article if they are the subject of media coverage in reliable, independent sources talking about them, and not if they don't — a Wikipedia notability criterion is not passed on the basis of the claim being made, but on the quality of the sourcing that you can provide to support that claim.
 * Interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself, do not count toward getting a person over WP:GNG; they can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met without depending on the interview, but they cannot in and of themselves be the GNG. And community weekly newspapers in small towns, such as the Milton Villager, cannnot count toward GNG either: again, they're acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that has already passed GNG on better sources, but they cannot fulfill GNG by themselves if they're the best sources you have to offer. These are not rules I made up myself: they're the standard rules that all people have to follow in all articles when it comes to establishing and sourcing notability under GNG. To count toward GNG, a source has to be substantive, and written about the subject in the third person by somebody other than himself, and appearing in widely distributed media. When it comes to Canadian newspapers, that means the major market dailies of the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, The Globe and Mail, etc., class — it does not mean the Milton Villager.
 * And the number of likes a person has or doesn't have on a social media platform does not confer an exemption from having to source the article properly, either — sources that satisfy GNG have to be present in the article or it can't be kept regardless of what achievements it claims. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm finding no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP. YouTube likes and Facebook followers do not meet out notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete with nothing else better convincing yet for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  03:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The sources in the article are enough to show notability. We are not here to nominate it for Good Article.--  Musa Talk  ☻ 11:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the sources in the article are not enough to show notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fails WP:ENT.--  Musa Talk  ☻ 19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT is not passed on the basis of claims that it's passed, if those claims are unsourced or poorly-sourced — the quality of the sourcing that's present to support an ENT claim is what determines whether a person passes or fails ENT, not the mere assertion of an ENT pass. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Facebook likes don't make you notable, nor does a little coverage in the local weekly paper. I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Maybe someday, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2016 (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.