- 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 no consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muzzammil Aslam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, If you believe the subject has extensive coverage, could you provide the WP:THREE best sources that meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Simply saying WP:GOOGLEHITS won't suffice — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that pinging specific editors to get their views in a deletion discussion may be construed as canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Saqib is correct that I do not always agree with him. However, I will not offer an opinion by being pinged to an AfD in which I have not already participated because even the appearance of canvassing is enough to sew distrust which is the last thing AfD needs, especially a contentious one which appears to be the case here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, no problem. However, @OwenX mentioned here that it’s safe to occasionally ping others for their input. But anyway I understand your position. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We News appears to be reliable and is SIGCOV. Tribune and Dawn are trivial mentions. Not enough to meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts How about this one and this one? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Voorts I've briefly explained above why I don't think We News is a RS. SheriffIsInTown Just getting some press coverage doesn't make someone notable or meet the GNG. Fwiw, Waqar Zaka has considerably more press coverage, yet his BLP was deleted because it failed to meet the rigorous GNG requirement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources (TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mettis is a trivial mention announcing his being hired. TNN is also routine coverage about him being hired. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts I never claimed that the infrequent use of a source makes it unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Saqib @Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, I understand your point but I’m still not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, both stories discuss his appointment as an advisor. Thus, I concur with @Voorts that both are just routine coverage about him being hired. A clear case of WP:BLP1E. While I’m fine with citing them for WP:V, but imv they don’t meet the criteria for establishing GNG. In case it’s useful, the Mettis Global coverage doesn’t even have a byline. And does Tribal News Network even have an editorial team? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is a consensus that WP:NPOL is not the standard to meet here but instead it's GNG and there are different opinions on whether coverage mention is SIGCOV or passing mentions or routine. The burden falls on those arguing to Keep to supply RS. Don't just mention publications, please provide links to articles that can establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Liz The links were provided. In my opinion, the following three meet the SIGCOV and GNG. They are not merely passing mentions, but there is disagreement:
- We News
- TNN
- Mettis Global
- Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not passing mentions, true, but all of these only cover him in the context of his nomination, so that's a clear case of WP:BLP1E (
Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
), which makes this non-notable even without discussing the (discutable) reliability of these three sources. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- +1— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alien333 You are overlooking the points under BLP1E. BLP1E applies only if all three conditions are met, but that is not the case here. He continues to receive significant coverage due to his role as a finance advisor in a provincial government, which exceeds the criteria of BLP1E. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SheriffIsInTown And can you please give the mentioned coverage after his nominations? With links, please? So far all you've given was only in the context of his nominations. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alien333 Here are just a few sources covering his role as the sole person managing the provincial government's finances. There are hundreds more if we include alternative spellings like Muzamil Aslam and sources in Urdu. These sources have emerged after his appointment, and such coverage will continue as long as he holds this position and the current government remains in power, typically for a five-year term. This consistent coverage exceeds the scope of BLP1E:
- The following coverage is all from 2021/2022, when he was part of the federal government, making it two separate events:
- Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With these sources, you've got me convinced. Will change my vote accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm still not convinced he meets the GNG. The coverage provided lacks by-line and seems to be based on press releases — "he said this," "he said that." which is typical for a spokesperson activities. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidonb @Youknowwhoistheman Considering the above comment and the sources mentioned, would you be willing to reconsider your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I did a lot of research, but I don't see this person meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:GNG). Youknow? (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2024 (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.