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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Abbas (journalist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALIST notability; contributing to the article will be more appropriate than deleting. --Kazmi ¹¹²² 11:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is famous journalist from Pakistan. He worked as President and Chief Executive Officer of BOL Network. Before that he worked in Jang Group. Deletion on ground of "fails to meet GNG" does not make sense, in fact, he is exact opposite. --Spasage (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware the subject worked as President and Chief Executive Officer of BOL Network, but you've to provide links to RS to establish the notability. Merely claiming the subject meet GNG is not enough. Several unreliable sources cited on the BLP. --Saqib (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (leaning keep). But for goodness sake Spasage, posting on the talk pages of 27 people Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist) are up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Abbas (journalist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami. Can you please help in improving these articles and defect deletion attempt. is pushing the bounds of WP:CANVASS. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These people have worked on similar articles. But I do not understand you, what was urge to write whole message on every page. It is strange :).--Spasage (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is slightly different for your talk-page, this AfD, and the other AfD, but given that the same statement is equally relevant in all three places I ended up repeating myself. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also in case it's not clear, you are not supposed to recommend a course of action when notifying people, saying something like "You may be interested in the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Abbas and (journalist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami, which are related to subjects you edit." would be more neutral and therefore more acceptable. Just saying. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spasage: You may request feedback at WT:PAK but dropping explicit messages for multiple users is WP:CANVASS. samee ^talk 15:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. samee ^talk 15:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samee: And how? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist who has been extensively quoted by his peers, he meets WP:JOURNALIST. samee ^talk 17:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My thought, after looking at the article, is... Current lack of reliable sources in an article is not a reason for deletion. Probable existence of sources is enough....WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If allowed some time, I can try to add some RS in addition to 3 existing references at this article and try to improve it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as stub WP:GNG is there, but it obviously needs expansion.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub I agree with NadirAli's statement above. On a side note, I could not find much other sources to further expand the article out of its current state and that worries me. BreadBuddy (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With both NGrewal and Breadbuddy commenting Keep but also mentioning that there are no reliable sources, with Samee, NadirAli, Kazmi, Spasage quoting apparent guidelines but without valid source support, with Spasage clearly canvassing editors for support, and with this being a BLP, I don't evidence consensus; I'm relisting this AfD for comments from more established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good idea.BreadBuddy (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what was the reason for first tagging it for deletion and how this decision is made. About reliable sources. If you do a google search [1], you can see that he is been interviewed or profiled in tribune.com.pk, www.geo.tv, staradvertiser.com, thenews.com.pk, cpj.org, bbc.com, csmonitor.com, newsone.tv, cnn.com, refworld.org and many more. Most of them are either big names internationally or in Pakistan. In the article, thenews, geo tv, tribune are referenced. If the only reason for keeping it AFD is canvassing then decision is wrong. Reason for asking editors to comments on this, was they have worked on similar articles. They are in better position to either improve or give their feedback. --Spasage (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spasage. Your communication to multiple editors, exhorting them to save this article, contravenes WP:CANVASSING. You also need to read WP:BLP, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:PRIMARY, if you believe interviews are enough for an article to qualify on notability. If you want editors to review your sources, my suggestion is to list the actual sources here than asking them to depend on Google search, which is amongst the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Feel free to ask for help at any time. Lourdes 02:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, You going back to canvassing. Lets focus on notability. Here are places where he was mentioned: In Pakistan Print or Electronic Media or website based in Pakistan: Media Development Trust, Pakistan Media Updates, Pakistan Press Foundation, Geo TV (large Electronic media group in Pakistan), Tribune Pakistan, The News Pakistan (Large print media group), DND Pakistan, News One Pakistan, Dawn (Largest English Daily), The News . In Pakistan Print or Electronic Media or website based in outside of Pakistan (International): Newyork Times, CPJ (Community to Protect Journalist), CS (Christian Science) Monitor, CNN, RefWorld, Murrow Interview, Aljazeera, VOA, PBS, 4th Pillar. All these places are very reliable source of information. --Spasage (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. This will help editors assess the notability of the BLP much better than the previous comments. Thanks, Lourdes 14:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are not even reliable enough to be cited on BLPs. --Saqib (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones ? @Saqib: --Spasage (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this is a borderline case. For an English-language journalist, I'm finding very little work by him. As far as articles about him, there's some coverage of his resignation from BOL [2] [3] but I wouldn't consider that sufficient on its own to meet GNG. I give very little weight to sources such as [4] which simply describe him as "high-profile" and say nothing else about him. I also found this live interview. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1J0FsT2egA&t=2s,

[5] and [6]. He is a Pakistani journalist. I am not sure how many reference we are looking for. I think we are just wasting time. I have been on wikipedia for long time. I have seen articles with single source. But here even though there are tons of sources, we still confused what to do. It is unfortunate that editors like User:Saqib likes to tags articles for deletion, knowing very well, that you will not find many reference on people from Pakistan on internet. He himself creating articles with week sources from Pakistan. We are wasting everyones time here. If you see above, most of users voted to keep it. We can keep it as a stub. The way discussion is being dragged here it looks like there is no end. No one can say that person does not exist or is now well known. User:Saqib stop tagging articles for deletion and User:Lourdes to move on its over a week after you asked for second opinion. --Spasage (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with borderline keep on this one as it does seem notable enough. [7] [8] [9]. M A A Z T A L K 13:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable journalist. Arif80s (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.