Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ibne Abbas

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ibne Abbas

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable. Dawn article was written by Mateen Haider (not a press release) and includes biographical information which is useful per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. There is a lot of coverage about him in Indian media, like Syed Ibne Abbas: Low-key diplomat knows how to handle India and [1]. 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)— 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- IP - I repeat diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable. WP:BASIC also states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. We don't need BLPs on each and every other head of mission. Routine coverage of head of mission is expected, therefore such coverage should not be considered sufficient to establish GNG , which requires strong sourcing. For instance, if each of the 200+ sovereign states maintains an average of minimum 100 diplomatic missions abroad, that means roughly 20,000 diplomatic missions and roughly 20,000 head of missions. Do we really need a BLP on each of them based on some routine coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LibStar is right, this particular article fails WP:BIO due to a lack of independent in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. The only one that seems to qualify could be the first source, and even then I'm not certain about the reliability. Just reads like a rehash of their resume. Pilaz (talk) 17:11, 23 June 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.