Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadeem F. Paracha

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem F. Paracha

Nadeem F. Paracha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fair number of sources in the article, but most of them point towards either something he wrote, or passing claims at him being notable within publications he writes for -- so where there is a clear conflict of interest-- and even in those sources, there isn't much of a claim to why he is notable. I am having trouble finding a claim to notability for him as a journalist that actually substantiates the why -- alot of it feel like self-aggrandizement-- and going through the edit history, there is a long history of the article swinging back and forth through BLP violations -- and the only really substantial content here is criticism of him in the "controversies" section. Bringing this to WP:AFD because I want to make sure that I am not making a judgement call based on WP:Systemic Bias in something like a prod. Sadads (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while the article needs improvement and there are possible BPL problems, his notability seems pretty clear. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DaltonCastle: How so? All I am seeing in the current article is that he is a journalist and he writes columns that get talked about by other journalists -- that doesn't make him notable. Its like saying that an academic is notable because he is consulted on a regular basis by other academics -- if there was an award, or a claim of lasting encyclopedic relevance -- then I would be more open to the keep argument, Sadads (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not finding anything else better, the article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Despite the references linked within the article, the subject has yet to receive the requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one was a bit difficult to assess, because the subject conceivably might have satisfied criterion #1 under WP:JOURNALIST (for being cited by peers). Google Books does show some books that either cite Paracha in their footnotes or give brief discussions of particular writings. But my overall impression is that these citations are not enough to clear the notability hurdle. As a gauge of his (lack of) importance in his field, I note that one of controversies listed in Paracha's article was his satirical piece about Malala, but the article on Malala doesn't mention Paracha at all. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2016 (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.