Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman W. Chohan


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Usman W. Chohan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(1) The Parliament of Canada is a secondary source that has cited the subject in national law (2) The University of New South Wales piece detailing impact of the subject is written by a secondary source, Myles Gough. (3) The International Political Science Association's World Congress is a secondary source. Please also note that doing a PhD does not make a notable subject less notable. (4) A Melbourne University Press published book of 50 Top Thinkers that includes the subject as one of its 50 thinkers is evidently a secondary source. Therefore, the argument that the subject is not evidenced by secondary sources is demonstrably incorrect. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
 * An ostensibly impressive list of references -- but there appears to be *nothing* to support notability -- i.e., no secondary sources written *about* the subject. He certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF -- he is currently doing his PhD: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity has made an incorrect assessment because the subject has numerous secondary sources; see the following four examples:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (provisional) Sources seem too implausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Is the official website of the Parliament of Canada implausible? --عثمان وقاص چوہان 21:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
 * I can't see his name there. Do you have any connection with the subject of the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Yes you can see his name right there. It is cited twice in the reading list on that page. Please be more attentive to the details before you declare sources such as a country's legislature "implausible", this is the parliament of Canada. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 09:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
 * Even so -- it is indeed a WP:PRIMARY source -- as are virtually all the others. Sources written by you do nothing to support a claim to notability.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY guidelines require "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" - such as this analysis of impact on Australian laws by the subject from a WP:SECONDARY source.  Nomoskedasticity is advised to look up in the "Find Sources" at the top of this page: (1) News, (2) Books, and (3) Scholar to get an idea of the subject's notability. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan


 * Keep. Notability is evident in the following examples of extensive and externally authenticable sources:

1A - Citation by the PARLIAMENT OF CANADA subject has been cited in a legislative motion in the Parliament of Canada.

1B - World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum is an international, notable body that provides a biography of the subject

2A - International Journal of Public Administration - Article The IJPA is a peer-reviewed, leading journal in the field of Public Administration. Impartial + external representation of the subject's notability.

2B - Parliamentary Affairs Journal Parliamentary Affairs is a peer-reviewed, leading journal in the field of Legislative Studies. Impartial representation of the subject's notability.

3 - Australia's 50 Top Thinkers, the Conversation Yearbook Book is published by Melbourne University Press. This is a published book that recognises 50 Australian Thinkers including the subject. (see also: )

4 - International Conference: World Congress of Political Science The conference has several thousand attendees and is the most important venue for political science in academia. The subject is clearly notable when their work is cited in a large international venue.

5 - Tax and Transfer Policy Institute: Think Tank Profile in respected Fiscal Policy Think Tank is an external indication of the notability of the subject.

Other examples are also easily available, but these examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate the following point. '''The subject is notable, the referencing of their notability is extensive and externally authenticable ( Parliament of Canada, leading peer-reviewed journals, international conferences, The World Economic Forum, a book published by Melbourne University Press, international think-tanks). Therefore, article is not a reasonable candidate for deletion.''' --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this gent fails the notability tests (which I doubt) then the notability tests are just plain wrong. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then where are the WP:SECONDARY sources? A !vote that simply disagrees with the notability policies won't carry much (if any) weight...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nomoskedasticity: Please take the time to look at the sources listed above. Just two examples will suffice: The Parliament of Canada can not possibly be a primary source; and nor can the International Political Science Association's World Congress of Political Science possibly be a primary source --عثمان وقاص چوہان 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
 * But in fact they are WP:PRIMARY sources. Please review the definitions in the linked policies before commenting further.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) User:Nomoskedasticity seems to be insisting on just one criteria of notability, but as User:Andrewa correctly points out, there are several criteria of WP:Notability and the subject conforms with these criteria; and (2) Secondary sources include, in line with WP:SECONDARY guidelines, "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" - this analysis is but one example of the subject discussing information along precisely those guidelines. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan
 * Do you have any connection with the subjecyt of the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
 * You seem to be conceding that the Canadian Parliament site and the WCPS do not meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement -- good. The source from your own university might work -- but it doesn't help that it's a source from your own university.  Anyway, if that's all you've got...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research that seems very relevant to this. Comments there very welcome. Andrewa (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Reboot -- the discussion above is based on some false premises and misunderstandings of policy. The only basis for considering notability here consists of this analysis, a piece published by the university where the subject is doing his PhD, and a collection re-publishing articles that had appeared earlier in The Conversation, selected to represent "Australia's Top 50 Thinkers" of 2016.  Everything else is either written by the subject or is a primary source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I did a quick search for additional references - which is complicated due to this guy being a writer (so stuff he writes shows up) and translator (including a few books). It does seem he wrote quite a few journal papers, made quite a few speeches/talks, appeared on TV a few times, and wrote extensively. Considering the amount of "noise" out there at age 30, he probably will be notable at some future point. Hard to ascertain, within all this noise, whether he is notable now.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prolific but the Google scholar link given by Icewhiz (reset to search by citation count ) shows too little impact for WP:PROF. And the "50 top thinkers" thing basically means only that one of the papers he wrote was included in an edited volume (not a notable accomplishment). Other than that, I don't see any evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Neutral (my bad on journalist criteria). He probably failes PROF. But he passes Notability (journalists) due to his role at The_Conversation_(website) [] + a number of other publications. He might also pass GNG (Hyperpolyglots, Taqanu, Sitarico, general media appearances as an expert (a few TV pieces), and the narrow technical field of "Parliamentary Fiscal Scrutiny") - hard to tell because it hard to find pieces about him between the large bushes of search result weeds (his own writing) - there might be more good sources out there - but they are hard to spot in the large amount of noise (25200 google hits, 4710 google-news hits - which does however contribute to Notability (journalists)).  Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC), modified:15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Those organisations -- Hyperpolyglots, Taqanu, and Sitarico -- are all things he created. He hasn't been selected for honours by someone else -- he's creating organisations (and thus leads them, by default), and there's no way the organisations are notable.  I really don't see the case for GNG (okay, I wouldn't, given that I nominated it -- but still...).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He's actually a co-founder of Taqanu ( is the founder, and I agree is fairly not notable (at least yet), but it isn't a 1 man show). I agree he's engaged in self-promotion and is trying to make "noise" to be notable. He does however write extensively in a number of news outlets, has regular radio spots (in various languages), and a few TV appearances. I think the whole ensemble is a very weak keep (to a large part due to him being a journalist effectively (also!)). And if he is deleted - then it should be with no prejudice for recreation if better sources come up (hard to find due to his own writing - which flood search results) and/or he crosses notability thresholds for other activities - he might be a NOTYET, but he's "close".Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've said he meets WP:Notability (journalists) -- but that of course was a failed proposal, it's not a viable notability standard (and anyway he doesn't meet the criteria specified there). The basic truth here is that virtually nothing has been written about him.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right - my bad on journalist (was searching to see if there was criteria for journo- and didn't notice the fail). At the very least, he is attempting (with some success - according to google and google-news hits on his rather unique name) to be a high-profile individual with regular media as an "expert" etc.. All these self-created organizations serve a broader function than just his wiki entry (which it seems is also used as part of his self-promotion)... Regarding virtually nothing about him - I'm not so sure - with this guy he's written so much out there, that finding stuff about him within all the results of stuff he's written - is difficult. He might have 5-10 secondary coverage sources - and it would be drowned out in the search results.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 20 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.