Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najm Us Saqib

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Najm Us Saqib

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

Diplomats are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:GNG per Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability. Steps were taken to locate coverage in indepdent RS WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason suggested above is invalid as the article is not here because this person is a diplomat. This article is about a popular Urdu poet, who has published poetry books in Urdu and Spanish (4 poetry books). He has written novels in Urdu and English language. His work is recognised with prestigious awards. He has been a very popular TV and radio host. His face book page has 30,000 followers. Being a diplomat is what he does to earn his living. Article is written with the intention of giving information about this author to the readers of Urdu poetry and Literature. Hopefully my honourable editor above will take this into consideration and help me to improve this article by suggesting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: User:Rukhsanachoudhry is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Are you trying to impersonate or what? [1]. Anyway, I'm afraid the subject fails WP:AUTHOR as well. --Saqib (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error of unfamiliarity with commands. Please forgive.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has been Pakistan's ambassador to various countries. Some coverage in English of his diplomatic activities and writings. I assume there is more in Urdu. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites many unreliable and non-independent references (I've removed some but the article still cite some non-independent references) and there's a lot of original research. Google search does not produce anything significant coverage about the person, even in Urdu language. Basically fails to meet basic GNG which says we need "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Unfortunately based on the cited and available RS, a standalone BLP cannot be created. The BLP is essentially promotion for the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. http://www.thediplomaticsociety.co.za/archive/archive/2079-najm-us-saqibs-novel-baoo-launched-in-south-africa https://tribune.com.pk/story/658778/bilateral-relations-ambitious-to-strengthen-ties-with-south-africa/ http://www.mofa.gov.pk/brazil/pr-details.php?prID=5337 Ross-c (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've to disagree that GNG passes. First reference (thediplomaticsociety.com) discuss the book of the subject. Second reference (tribune.com.pk) is mention in passing. Third reference a press release by the Embassy of Brazil so it is not even independent of the subject and is primary source. I would say The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish notability. --Saqib (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep. per other users. M A A Z T A L K 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unimpressive sourcing and the keep arguments are more hopeful than policy based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see coverage that is sufficiently in depth and from sufficiently weighty sources for this to clear the GNG threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV as a poet or as a diplomat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 6 May 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.