Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&type=revision&diff=974338287&oldid=974240310&diffmode=source, "All the information posted about waqar zaka is either wrong or fake details". So we're finding ourselves in the situation is that the subject claims that all the cited sources are wrong, but the subject himself is not a reliable source. After reviewing the sources, I am convinced that they are all celebrity gossip, and using them is a violation of WP:BLP. We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. It is not up to Zaka to prove that they are wrong, it is up to us to prove that they are right. Vexations (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Seriously? You trusted the claims of newbie and decided to nominate this BLP for deletion thinking this BLP is WP:JUNK? Subject is notable enough to warrant his own WP biography, whereas WP:DYNAMITE does not apply either because each passage and every single line is properly cited via high-quality RS. Still, if something is misleading, it can be fixed instead of deleting the page outright. Remember, An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Verifiability, not truth. --Saqib (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if Shaheryar Shabbir's claims are correct or not. I don't know if they represent Zaka or not. Anyone can come here and claim to represent someone. We do know that the article has been contested in its entirety and it is up to us to make sure it complies with WP:BLP. Here's a simple example, for a very straightforward claim: "born 1 January 1978" is cited to https://www.teatmik.ee/en/personprivate/351288-Waqar-Zaka that looks like a terrible source to me, and other sources say differently. It is very likely wrong. So, if we can't even get that right; can we trust the rest of the article? Vexations (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which other source says differently? Both cited sources state he was born 1 January 1978. Both are websites which shares data on individual corporate entities and this seems reliable to me. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's a thing, apparently: https://www.muzent.com/google-wikipedia-displaying-wrong-information-waqar-zaka/ Vexations (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Vexations: This is a PR stuff. Subject is known for Age fabrication. --Saqib (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want me to send his official documents I can, I'm not a kid with 0 info you can confirm my identity directly by Mr Waqar Zaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested to see private official documents. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I know what kind of a guy you're, I'm Waqar Zaka's official social media team co-ordinator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Shaheryar Shabbir: Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. May we also conclude that you are being paid to edit on behalf of Zaka? —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by what kind of guy am I? And since you've declared your connection with subject, your votes on this nomination page should be considered null and void. --Saqib (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All the details on this page is wrong, I can prove it using the correct sources, I have his official document such as his passport and other stuff which is authenticated and verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Shaheryar Shabbir: A scan of a passport should not be used as a source. We need independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles about him. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep preferably Speedy. I can see why the article subject and acting on their behalf would want to suppress the article, but RS like this and this and this are definitely significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We are not Zaka's PR firm and he does not get to demand what the article about him says. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the page if you cannot post relevant and authentic details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 04:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Shaheryar Shabbir: Are you conceding that there are not enough reliable sources about Zaka and that he is not a notable person? —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred: He's imply'g that delete the BLP if we can't write it in their terms. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly.  the preference of you and your employer has been noted.  They have no basis in policy and therefore no bearing on this discussion.  You have been making the same demands in multiple places and received the same response.  Making them again does not strengthen your position but weakens it.  Read WP:BLUDGEON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's clarify something. The editor claiming to represent Zaka does not want the article deleted, they want the content changed, but they have not proposed a new text. I don't think that they want the article deleted, at least they haven't explicitly said so. It is clear that my proposal for deletion as a solution that leaves all parties equally dissatisfied (aka a compromise), has failed. I'll withdraw this AfD and close it as keep. I suggest that instead editors who are unhappy with the current text point out exactly claims are incorrect and which sources are unreliable. Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates has all kinds of suitable templates. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing

Just an example How the hell in a world can someone tell his date of birth? His common detail is wrong which is his date of birth, There is no such document bigger than a passport which verifies his date of birth, are you guys okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (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.