Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Ignoring the back-and-forth accusations of COI/SPA, the arguments on the Delete side are based more on source analysis and guidelines, not to mention being decisively more numerous than the Keep !votes. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OP blocked. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved.  So let it be reviewed by the community.
 * And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest,  you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who  added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO  from his own BLP. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency,  and Pakistan.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else. Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis.  If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few.  Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency  and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for  WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles.  Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow  for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass GNG notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. Haruka  Amaranth  13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oblivy, What do you mean by "inadequate independent sources"? I can't find any reference that isn't independent of the subject. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 14:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Source Assessment Analysis


 * Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia  policy.  I am not supporting any side.  The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment.  It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG.  Most  of the sources fail WP:RS.  This is very clear!  Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.


 * Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions  in the past. I stopped because of the  un-encouraging  attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased?  I am not in any way linked to that SPI.   My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to  access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.


 * Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links.  Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's  all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC.  I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).  While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go."  As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant".  Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable . You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence, even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" , you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE , all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts , , ,   but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, close to the borderline of WP:GNG, fails WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This  is a mere passing mention of the subject. This  and this  appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This  seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This  is a clear sponsored post	 instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These   sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * JoelleJay, I disagree with @Maltuguom's source assessment. They labeled every single source except, BBC and Reuters, as unreliable and paid, even though most of the coverage was critical of the subject, like in these examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. From what I understand, subjects are considered notable if they are directors, producers, or even if they have significant roles (incliding creators) in TV shows. This guy meets all those criteria. I'm curious why we have BLPs on less famous Pakistani actors but not for someone who is a popular, albeit controversial, TV figure in Pakistan. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So every director and producer is notable just because they produce or direct just a few movies? It is deeper than you think. There must be significant coverage to meet those notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ludamane, Why not? This section states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Such as The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per source analysis to which I have nothing much to add. This is a non notable subject and should wait until such a time when notability meets at least WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Articled contains so much unreliable sources. Ludamane (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's another sleeper account joining the AFDs  for the first time, i guess! — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have taken ownership of this AFD otherwise why throwing accusation at every editor that comment in this AFD? I have read countless AFD discussions with lengthy threads more than this particular one but never have I seen single editor being uncivil in their discussion as you do here. This is a non-notable subject and majority opinion show that this subject does not meet any notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not implying that everyone here is a sleeper account, but it's worrisome that some including you who've never engaged in AfDs before are suddenly joining in, especially when this AfD itself was initiated by a sleeper account. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not check who initiated this AFD and my position here is based on the unreliable sources in this article. Subject is not notable and there is no need wasting so much time and energy on this. Ludamane (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem logical to label respected Pakistani publications like DAWN and The Express Tribune as unreliable sources. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article from the DAWN is a very short interview and that's mostly categorised under primary sources more so that that interview was very trivial and did not discuss any serious issue of much public interest Ludamane (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saqib, please stop. You opened a SPI about 2 users who !voted Delete, not sure it was appropriate nor wether it will be endorsed but that should be enough. Assume good faith and consider NOT commenting on every !vote that does not go your way. I generally don't comment on behaviour issues unless I am personally involved, but your comments do not seem to be made in a constructive spirit (and that is an understatement, believe me). Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We've got over 6 editors voting for deletion here, but I've only filed SPI on 3 of them, not all. My worries are totally legit. These 3 sleeper accounts, never even glanced at Pakistani pages before, NOR ever participated in  AfDs before. Anyway, I'm throwing in the towel on this one. Don't really care if this BLP sticks around or not, but I'm still scratching my head over why someone's going all out to axe this BLP. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Piscili and Ludamane are not "sleeper" accounts and they had participated in AfDs before . I have no time to comment anymore on the issue, sorry. Still, I'm inviting you again to change your approach. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mushy Yank, Sure, I'm stepping back from this now. But before I bow out, I've to say that this is seriously risky. Anyone could get a BLP wiped out like this, even if the subject clearly meet WP:N. I dropped a note on your tp explaining that this subject isn't just some ROTM figure in Pakistan. He's controversial, sure, but undeniably popular and gets loads of press coverage in RS. And here's an interesting tidbit: even Jimmy Wales himself once edited this BLP.<span id="Saqib:1716463430273:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Waqar_Zaka_(3rd_nomination)" class="FTTCmt"> — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mushy Yank, you need to see this  its the hatred i received just for sharing my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.