Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zidane Hamid


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Zidane Hamid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being the youngest person to earn Microsoft Office Specialist 2010 certification at age five is not something that make a person notable. The person should meet basic GNG to have a WP:BIO.

Subject received press attention only once which is not enough to establish the WP:N. Saqib (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The subject has notablility for wikipedia so it derves to be part of wikipedia. . Missionary Muslim (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia has a responsibility when it comes to biographies of living children, where the articles have to be entirely neutral and the sourcing must be especially strong. Being a child prodigy is not in itself grounds for notability, so the question is whether there are multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the person in depth. As seen in the list of 16 sources above, that does not appear to be the case. Some are copies of the same press release or the same content from pakistanbookofrecords.com. Some are very brief mentions (hence not in-depth coverage). Six of them are YouTube videos of his speeches (primary sources) and one is a link to another Wikipedia article. The claim that he lectures at universities is dubious and would need actual independent sourcing. In addition there are BLP concerns where the article's creator (who presumably has a COI) repeatedly inserts promotional text and unsourced claims in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I initially though that GNG would be met and spent a bit of time this morning looking for better sources - there are none. The Express Tribune piece is the only example of RS coverage I could locate. Especially given the COI and promotional concerns regarding this article (I see that just prior to this !vote it was jammed full of inappropriate content once again), there is no reason to retain it. Yunshui 雲 水 10:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite sources, being a child prodigy is not enough to merit a Wikipedia page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

being exceptional and child prodigy isnt a notable thing to be wikipedia? I saw wikipedia page of child who has not achieved any distinction except social media fan following. But this child prodigy has achieved something. Missionary Muslim (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a specific (and idiosyncratic) definition of notability. In addition, the existence of other articles is not an argument - maybe the other article you saw should also be deleted on notability grounds, and maybe that subject does met the notability requirements. That's not relevant to this article, though. --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Almost all of the proposed references are Zidane's appearances on TV or other video media. These are by him, not about him. Being a novelty is not the same as being notable. David notMD (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete it is very rare 8-year-olds are notable, and no exception seems to exist here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 3 September 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.