Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharik Hussain


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tharik Hussain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an autobiography of a freelance writer who does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or any of the more specific biographical notability criteria. The subject seems to be best known for a BBC radio documentary nominated for a New York Festivals World’s Best Radio Programs award. However, I don't think this is a "well-known and significant award or honor", and at any rate the subject hasn't won one; the production he worked on was only nominated.

The draft's current referencing is mostly made up of articles that Hussain himself has written, which do not help show notability. I also did my own search of Google, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books, Highbeam, JSTOR and Bing. My search revealed only one independent reliable source with in-depth coverage of Hussain: this article by the Waltham Forest Guardian. However, it is only a local newspaper and as a result does not carry much weight. Hussain also gets two mentions in this book. However, it is only a brief discussion and I do not think it supports a finding of notability.

That is the extent of the independent sources I was able to find about the subject. Again, the majority of the references this search turned up were to articles Hussain himself has written, or to the radio documentary he worked on—these do not help show notability. /wiae /tlk  21:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: the author has left a comment on the talk page of this deletion discussion; I'll reproduce it below for easier visibility. /wiae /tlk  20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC) "In response to the AfD, I would like to say that my notability is in a field that is very niche and still developing/emerging, especially in the western psyche. The Muslim Travel Market and the Muslim heritage of the west. I would also like to add that quite clearly the revelations I have made - Discovering America's oldest mosque, a Sinan military fortress and a 600 year old Muslim community in the Baltic are certainly of note, and this has been acknowledged, albeit not necessarily in a written article as such. None of the above appear anywhere on the internet or in many public sources otherwise. As for the citations I make that link to writing by myself. I usually do this to evidence claims I am making about what I have written about - such as the Baltic Muslim or where it has appeared - writing for Thomson Reuters. I cannot see how else one would evidence such a claim except to lead the reader to the source. At present it is true that global media has not written much about the work I have done, but I expect that to change. The only ones that have are niche or local media as in the case of the newspaper mentioned and this LB24TV interview. I also have evidence of appearances on British Muslim TV, Islam Channel and BBC Radio where I am discussed in this light - for my specialism in the Muslim heritage of the west and travel writing about Muslim travel. I have not yet got round to connecting the relevant citations therein. In part because sometimes the citation is difficult to make as the programme may have been was live and no longer available, however, I do know the specific details in order for this to be confirmed and verified independently. I also feel I have been transparent about the fact that this is an entry about myself. I would appreciate it as one message states, if someone else was to assist in editing it in an unbiased way if it is felt that this is the case at present. The Wandering Musulman (talk)"


 * Delete. One, "my notability" indicates a clear conflict of interest and an autobiography, both of which are strongly frowned upon here. We are a private not-for-profit, not a public webhost. Two, "very niche and still developing/emerging" screams "not ready for prime time". Three, this is a soapboxing: "clearly the revelations I have made..." Stop that. We are not a public forum. Finally, this is likely a copyright violation: "I make that citation myself". Bearian (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were still an admin, I would speedy delete and salt it. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the rationale of the nominator and the previous comment. The vast majority of the article is sourced to primary non-independent sources. The very few third party sources that exist do not make it clear why the subject is notable. The subject wouldn't pass WP:AUTHOR either. In the present form, the article is purely a case of WP:PROMO and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think there is much to add after the nom, Tharik's own statement and nice summary from Bearian. This is classic self promotion, taken to next level. Well done Tharik! But sorry, this is not WordPress. -- nafSadh did say 05:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still nothing suggesting any actual solid independent notability, despite the information and sources. SwisterTwister   talk  07:54, 5 June 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.