Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Shahid


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Waleed Shahid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer and political organizer, not properly sourced as notable. As always, writers and organizers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but the references here aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG: the media coverage here comprises glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, not coverage about him, and the only references that are about him to any non-trivial degree are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (e.g. an Instagram post). This is not how you source a political organizer as notable enough for an article: he needs to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his name show up in news articles about other subjects that aren't him, to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I have added two books as references, one of which has a chapter called "Waleed Shahid and Corbin Trent - A Tea Party of the Left?" I would not call some of the news coverage "glancing namechecks of his existence" - major news sources, including The Guardian, which is UK/Australia, devote several paragraphs to the activist group he co-founded, quote what Shahid has said, and comment on it. Definitely meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the books is a very brief mention in a children's book; the other - see my comment below - is not INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Devoting paragraphs to the group is not the same thing as devoting paragraphs to him as an individual, and quoting what he has said does not contribute to notability at all. He has to personally be the subject of a source before it helps GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In one of the books mentioned by User:RebeccaGreen, Shahid is definitely personally the subject of the chapter. I also think the articles cited are not only reliable WP:GNG but single him out personally as a leader who is notable figure in the movement (whether it be the organization he co-founded, or the organizations he helped 'organize'). I realize the articles aren't only about Shahid but are also about his (and others') activities, but the frequencies of the reports indicate to me that he is a notable individual and recognized by the media as such Perplextase (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but please look at comment below. The chapter/book seem not to be not WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I've removed the Instagram reference because it wasn't serving any purpose. He is referenced and written about in many sources, but I see what you mean: he is often cited as a spokesperson for a given campaign or organization, and usually the article is about that movement. There are other references, however, including bios, an interview, a book chapter, and articles devoting some personal time on him. I think the many articles referencing Shahid do demonstrate his notoriety. Rather than "glancing namechecks", they show the media consistently singles him out as notable (by not only taking his statement, but by reporting on what he tweets) Perplextase (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep While I agree with the nom that most of the citations are of insufficient depth, and that mere-mentions or quotes from him as a spokesperson do not constitute significant coverage, the book The Next Republic: The Rise of a New Radical Majority appears to devote significant coverage to the subject in particular, and provides enough coverage to justify notability alongside the large quantity of more trivial coverage. striking vote per E.M. Gregory's argument, no new vote at this thime signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning Delete.  A lot of brief mentions of this political campaign staffer doing ordinary campaign stuff, like founding a short-lived PAC, AllOfUs a  stub that should probably be merged into Justice Democrats, as the PAC was.  At a glance, The Next Republic: The Rise of a New Radical Majority, the only INDEPTH source, looks like a strong source.    Problem is that it is a compilation of  D. D. Guttenplan's coverage of the 2016 campaign for The Nation.  Waleed Shahid was also writing about that campaign for The Nation.  It would be useful to see some SIGCOV of Shahid in a publication that Shahid doesn't work for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, looking closer, as Perplextase points our above, many of the hits merely quote him for the campaign or organization that he is a paid, professional spokesman for. This sort of citation does not support notability.  The Guttenplan book, the only SIGCOV I can find, is not WP:INDEPENDENT Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of the sources merely quote him (sometimes in his capacity as an official) but not all. There is SIGCOV which is independent from articles in the Gaurdian and from ABC -- WP:N specifies that the main subject of the article doesn't need to be the person in question. Is there some reason the Guttenplan book isn't considered independent? Perplextase (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Further, on account of WP:BIO I've reevaluated how non-trivial these references are, as Shahid is not trivially mentioned in these articles but rather referenced as a principal mover of the organization or movement in question (which are themselves the subjects of these articles). WP:BIO goes on to say that if the coverage is not in depth, then "then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"; and AFAIK Shahid isn't professionally linked to CNN/ABC/Gaurdian/Intercept/WP or any of the others (while he is certainly linked to other not listed publications such as the Nation). Perplextase (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perplextase, I am always willing to change my opinion when presented with persuasive evidence. If you have time, it might be useful if you would bring  and "quote" on  this page 4 or 5 of the most persuasive passages that you see as SIGCOV, with links to the articles.  Yow are under no obligaiton to do so, of course, but it is the sort of thing that persuades other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, so the persuasiveness of this evidence I think depends on how trivial the many small references to Shahid are. I think they're not trivial insofar as these articles in question concern directly, if not Shahid himself, the organizations he lead. Further substantiating Shahid's presence as a figure head for a given movement(s) and notable as such are some articles covering him including ABC and the Guardian. (And again I'm not sure why the book The New Republic is not independent SIGCOV). I realize you've requested quotes, but I find the snippets out of context to obscure the issue, but here are links I think demonstrate what I mean: abc and the guardian. I think this definition of non-trivial from WP:BIO is helpful too: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. " -- I think Shahid is closely related to the content of the published works, even when it's not his name or agency explicitly, and from WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ". Perplextase (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that book in question is entitled The Next Republic: The Rise of a New Radical Majority and is unrelated to The New Republic magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have posted the quesiton about whether the material in the book is INDEPENDENT of Shahid at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, not notable in his own right. It's in the nature of political staffers to be mentioned here or there as a trabant. Such coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked at the coverage in the ABC and Guardian sources and I came away knowing nothing about the person apart from the fact he is a muslim and feels frightened. Neither article says anything about him with the exception of these quotes and the fact that he is the co-founder of All of us. Neither article deemed it necessary to give any biographical information, there is nothing in-depth about the coverage of him. As pointed out the sources mention him because he has a job as spokeperson for different organisations. Even the interviews he gave are not about him. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2018 (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.