Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shehzad Ghias Shaikh


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Shehzad Ghias Shaikh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After cleaning up and removing unreliable references, I found there is nothing in the cited references that could make the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. The subject recived some press coverage and most of the cited references merely quote him. The subject clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's bio criteria so I nominate it for deletion. Note: the article itself was created and expanded by the subject himself. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, regarding opinion about !votes that provide no qualification. North America1000 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)



 References
 * Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although on a weaker level. North America1000 03:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Express Tribune
 * Reuters
 * The Express tribune
 * Hindustan Times
 * News18
 * Pakistan Today
 * Almost all sources merely quote his name. --Saqib (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do the sources found establish notability?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  18:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I can see that this person is a comedian who tells jokes and that some of them have landed him temporary media attention. However, there is no evidence in this article so far which would make him appear notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 19:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Regarding "...landed him temporary media attention", note the dates I have added to the sources below, denoting how the subject has received ongoing coverage, rather than "temporary" coverage.
 * Regarding "...no evidence in this article so far", see WP:NEXIST; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Articles do not pass or not pass notability guidelines, subjects and topics do. North America1000 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * The Express Tribune – June 16, 2015
 * Reuters –  August 21, 2015
 * The Express tribune – December 27, 2015
 * Hindustan Times – March 31, 2016
 * News18 – September 27, 2016
 * Pakistan Today – September 29, 2016

 References
 * Comment – Below is another source. North America1000 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Standup meets music". The News International. January 15, 2017.


 * Wow your name to ping is a type-full. Of course, the existence of sources can substantiate the existence of a person. News sources are great for finding out what people do and do not do because they make money from printing about it. The assertion that simply because you are mentioned or written about externally from Wikipedia means that this on its own creates notability is something I do not agree with. The key elements to this article seem to be statements of two things. Firstly that the subject of the article is a comedian in Pakistan. Secondly that the comedian has received media coverage. Neither of those two components in of themselves appear to establish notability. Summarily, the articles core information to the reader attests that this is a man who is a comedian and has media coverage. Neither being a comedian or receiving news coverage seems to demonstrate notability of a living person in my mind. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The presence of media coverage about subjects is a long-term, widespread norm on Wikipedia to establish notability. If you don't agree with notability guidelines, it comes across that you're basing notability on subjective, personal criteria. North America1000 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute your assertion that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies stipulate that the notability of a living person can be determined solely on news coverage. One would first have to ascertain the credibility and objectivity of the news sources themselves. Moreover, you would have to move to assess the WP:NPOV of news coverage, which is very rarely the N part of POV. Summarily, basing the notion of notability for a living person on News coverage is not only dangerous but is factually erroneous. This gives control to News outlets so that they may establish a persons notability merely on the basis of writing about that person rather than having a burden of proof on them to credibly establish notability. In my opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Not News. Merely being referenced by news agencies does not solely establish notability, it establishes coverage. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, better delete Louis C.K. then, right? Just look at all those news articles used as references in the article! North America1000 01:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)



→ (talk to me!) (contributions) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, as a comedian Shaikh's 'works' are his jokes, if these have been discussed/analysed by the newspaper articles then he is notable under WP:CREATIVE ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Only three editors have expressed an opinion either way, so far. Let's hear from more people!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 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.